For those who don’t want to open a Twitter link:
This is the whole shtick behind SaaS (software as a service - what Adobe does).
If you sell software as goods, and you introduce some abusive clause into the user agreement of the next version of the software, your user will weight the cons of that clause vs. the benefits of using a newer version of the software. And they’ll likely say “nah, screw it. I’ll keep using the old version”.
However, if you sell software as a service, and you introduce said abusive clause, the user needs to weight the cons of that clause versus of using your software at all. If they say “screw it”, they can’t simply use an old version - since it was serviced, they lose access to all versions once they decline.
And, because of the asymmetry of power between a corporation and its customers, a corporation can include lots and lots of abusive clauses into SaaS, and the users will still keep using its software. Because for the corporation failure to sell their crapware is simply a 0.00000000273% loss of profit, while for the user inability to use said crapware means a huge cost of switch.
Why I’m saying this: because even if you’re going to stick to proprietary software (you shouldn’t), you should treat SaaS as cancer. Not just Adobe. Developers giving themselves the freedom to change the rules of the game midway will do it to screw you up, the matter is only “when”.
