Is that really so "greedy", as you put it? Isn't it basically SaaS but with fonts?
We don't seem to have a problem renting our software services on a subscription basis (Github, NewRelic, etc.).
We don't seem to have a problem renting our software services on a subscription basis (Github, NewRelic, etc.).
If the SaaS has ongoing value -- for example, if it involves a hosted element that uses resources each month -- then it can be worth ongoing payments. Its value to the customer increases over time.
If the SaaS is just a static piece of software -- or something that might later receive updates of unknown value that you might or might not actually want anyway -- and it's something you will need for the long term, then it probably needs to be much cheaper to rent it than to buy it outright before it's economically worthwhile. Its value doesn't increase over time, so you have to compare the expected cost for as long as you think you'll need to rent it with the one-time cost of buying outright. Even then, you still have the security of your investment to consider if there is no guarantee that the software will still be there or still work the same way when you need it later.
In other words, yes, a lot of SaaS is also greedy.
Of course, I support the foundries making up any business model they want. But the argument is not the same as SaaS.
Fixing this for accuracy. I agree.
Then again, Adobe has moved to SaaS only (or are they selling licenses for non-CC apps?), so designers don't have much of a choice anymore.
Sure we do. You can still buy versions up to CS6 as a one-time purchase. Rather like Microsoft, Adobe's biggest competition has become the old versions of their own software that aren't crippled with ongoing payments and the risk of involuntary future changes to how they work or what they cost.
Presumably they've done the math and reckon they're going to make more money between the people who signed up for Creative Cloud and the people they can now lure in who can afford a relatively low monthly fee but couldn't front the whole cost of CS in a single payment before than they're going to lose from people who won't give them any more money now but might have paid for upgrades under the old scheme. Given how little value they seem to have added either in the later CS series upgrades or since the move to CC, I suspect they're right.
I.e., it treats downloading the webfont into a user's browser as a copy and distribution of software. This is the bit that is ridiculous and needs to change. Print design for example labors under no such restrictions.
Why are fonts different?
When I worked in the agency world, most of our clients' budgets were a bit too tight for rights-managed photography (RM is generally more expensive on top of being more restrictively licensed), but when we did, there was usually a fairly simple set of web form selects for publication type, duration of publication, audience size, etc.