I get the dislike of subscriptions. I don’t think many people enjoy having yet another monthly bill.
And yes, I’d prefer perpetual licences too. Although even then, let’s be honest, you never really “own” software in the way people talk about it. You licence it. But I do understand why people preferred paying once and keeping a version for years.
Where I think the argument falls apart is when people treat “subscription bad” as if that automatically makes Adobe poor value in a professional setting.
I was asked this in work before. Someone said the Adobe subscription model was a rip-off, so I asked how much it cost. Roughly €60 a month. Then I asked how much we charge for one artwork iteration. About €30.
So two iterations pays for a full month of Adobe apps. Not just InDesign. Not just Photoshop. The full suite. Current, supported, compatible, and kept up to date. Including Acrobat (which a reliable PDF reader doesn’t come with other software packages).
And that’s before you even look at actual production output. If an artworker is completing roughly 4–6 jobs a day, that’s maybe 20–24 jobs a week, or 80–96 jobs a month. Out of all that work, only two non-proof 1 (iteration) jobs need to cover the monthly software cost.
At that point, the Adobe subscription is not really the expensive part of the workflow.
The expensive part is lost time. Broken compatibility. Failed exports. Bad PDFs. Missing fonts. Unsupported software. Rebuilding files. Colour issues. Preflight problems. Accessibility issues. Packaging problems. Scripting limitations. Plugins not working. Or a workflow that doesn’t match what clients, printers, agencies, suppliers, and production departments are using further down the line.
That is where the real cost is.
For an old hippee, or a hobbyist, student, retiree, or someone doing the odd personal job, I completely understand why €60 a month feels like too much. Use CS6, Affinity, Scribus, Inkscape, GIMP, Quark, or whatever works for you. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
If you are not getting paid from the software, or if you are working entirely in your own bubble, then use whatever suits your needs and your budget, who wouldn’t, it makes sense, right?
But in professional design, artwork, production, packaging, print, or agency workflows, the software cost is a business cost. It is not a moral failing. If the tool saves hours, avoids errors, opens client files cleanly, supports current PDF/export requirements, handles fonts properly, fits into the wider pipeline, and helps you get paid work out the door, then it can pay for itself very quickly.
That’s why the “I still use CS6 and free alternatives exist” argument only goes so far.
It works if your needs haven’t moved on, your operating system still supports it, your clients don’t need current file compatibility, and you’re not part of a production chain where colour management, PDF standards, accessibility, preflight, fonts, packaging, scripting, plugins, collaboration, and handoff all matter.
But pretending CS6 is still a realistic answer for every designer in 2026 is a bit like saying you still drive a 1998 van, therefore nobody needs a modern van. Great if it still works for you. That doesn’t mean it works for everyone else. And how much longer will it work, OS modernises, the software stops working at some point.
And then the point always comes to ‘how much did you pay for your computer?’ - a lot of people go out and buy shiny new Macs with a price tag of about €3k+ and then complain about Adobe… Apple are the biggest rip-offs, you can buy a Windows PC that does the same job and spec as Mac for half-the-price - yet you say that to some designers and it’s like ‘blasphemy’ - how dare you not use a Mac for design??? But don’t want to sully my point 3k for a laptop, another 1k on a monitor from Apple, a Magic Mouse, a Magic Keyboard, all pointless and a setup of 5k+ and then moan about Adobe costing 60 quid a month.
Back on track - the same applies to non-Adobe software. Affinity, Scribus, Inkscape, GIMP, Quark plenty of people use them and do just fine. But depending on the job, the problems may not show up at the start. They may show up later when you need to send files back to a client, hand them to another designer, supply print-ready artwork, match an existing workflow, use a plugin, run scripts, package fonts and links, or deal a print/production line who expect Adobe files.
So the better argument is not “subscription bad, free software good.”
The better question is: does the tool justify its cost for the work being done?
Sometimes the answer is no. For some people, Adobe genuinely is overkill. That’s absolutely fine.
But for a lot of professional Adobe users, the answer is still yes. And honestly, €60 a month for the full suite is not the thing that’s killing a professional workflow. I’ve spent more than that on coffees on the road, more than that on diesel when I had a diesel car, and more than that on lunches out.
So no, subscriptions are not automatically evil. And no, Adobe is not automatically a rip-off just because it’s monthly/yearly.
If it isn’t earning its keep, don’t pay for it. That goes for everything in life.
But if it is making money every working day, fitting into the pipeline, avoiding errors, and keeping professional work moving, then it is doing exactly what a business tool is supposed to do.
end rant
A growing trend in creative & dev tooling is quietly undermining the very spirit of creation: “Profit-based pricing.”
You can design websites unless you plan to sell them.
So if you’re a freelancer, agency, or indie dev? You’re forced into a “commercial license” not for more features, not for support, not for scale… but simply because you intend to earn money from your own work.
Your labor isn’t yours to monetize freely.
I used Linguix AI to fix grammar and spelling
