For the past few years, the concept of technology improving the lives of the collective has felt a bit harder to access than usual. While software like Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign has made it much easier for creatives to produce and distribute high-quality work, it’s also famously expensive. In the past, downloading one of these programs was one-and-done, so it’d be a rough expense for a moment before paying for itself. But in 2013, Adobe took a cue from the streaming world and changed to a subscription model, which means you can no longer just download their software (or borrow someone’s CD) and use it until the version in question doesn’t work on your computer anymore. Instead, Adobe users spent the past decade dropping hundreds of dollars once a year to retain access to their software, creating an extra business expense for creatives who already tend to struggle in lean years but are feeling even more pressure with AI threatening their livelihoods.
If resentment for Adobe’s business model was already present but quiet, it’s been increasingly loud for the past month or so. Not even a couple of weeks ago, we covered complaints about the draconian General Terms of Use that give Adobe full access to anything users make with their software, leading many to conclude that they’re ripping from customers’ private works to train AI. Unfortunately, anyone interested in fully opting out of the software has hurdles to jump, as Adobe has— unsurprisingly— made it difficult and expensive to remove their software. That attracted the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, which is taking action against the company for unethical business practices that have obfuscated important information and bound reluctant users to hefty fees on top of costly subscriptions.
This comes on top of the recent controversy with Adobe’s privacy policy, which essentially required anyone with a download of the software to sign onto it. While the whole idea of an agreement should theoretically allow signatories the right to refusal, Adobe didn’t offer users any way out. It’s not just that anyone who wants to keep using their software was bound to the agreement— even users who wished to uninstall it were still required to agree to sign onto the policy before they could remove the software.
