No, but that's the next logical step: most people I know don't upgrade regularly, because they don't want to pay for each and every version. With a subscription that advantage goes away. Chrome works that way (unless you opt out), for instance, and App Store apps also update automatically. It's just a matter of getting used to.
It's pretty obvious: To get the newest features and bug fixes.
A few, but the problem was that I was updating »too quickly« for the most part, e. g. Cisco's VPN client (they always seem surprised when Apple releases a new OS or my hardware monitor calibration utility. With one exception (where I need to use an older version for compatibility's sake) I always keep all of my software up to date.
Or I can open the images with Preview and make a quick conversion to .tif. I'm sure if you're creative enough you can find other ways. But that's not how Lightroom is supposed to work, and adds an extra step to the workflow. Again, you can turn it any way you'd like, if you choose Lightroom to be your DAM software of choice, you'll eventually pay for a subscription, it's as simple as that. All we are arguing about is how long you can postpone it. And if you're fundamentally opposed to paying for a software subscription, you should switch away from Lightroom (or not switch to it if you're not using it already).
These policies are always subject to change, and this change has to happen slowly. If you're a cynic, picture a frog being boiled by slowly raising the temperature of the water. There is no advantage for Adobe in supporting old versions, it just takes away engineering resources they could use to improve their latest version. It's clear where the train is headed, and Adobe is betting its company on this. That much is obvious.
I don't know whether auto updating apps is on by default, but Apple has recently issued its first automatic security update. And I haven't had a single issue with autoupdates.
No, that's not what I'm arguing at all! I'm saying that Adobe has decided to switch its business model from old school licenses to a subscription service, and that people have to deal with this reality. I'm not claiming one business model is better for the user than the other. And the fact that I always stick to the latest version with the software I use is independent of whether it's a traditional license or a subscription service.
There are clear hints on how to avoid large-scale disasters, e. g. public beta programs and slow roll outs (where only a small minority of users are initially updated). The fact that you separate software and the cloud makes me thing that you haven't noticed where Adobe is going: there is a cloud component to their software ecosystem (e. g. my gf has a portfolio on the Adobe cloud or Lightroom syncs via the cloud with the iPad). Many pieces of software not only tightly integrate with the cloud, but the cloud becomes an indispensable part of the software itself.
Painless updates are a reality on iOS, and in part they are a reality with OS X (with a few more caveats, of course). It's not a question of »if« but »when«.
On 10.10 security updates are installed automatically by default. It's a matter of time when all updates are applied by default, although that may still be a few years off. Apple transitions slowly and deliberately.
It has nothing to do with being adventuresome, the most recent OS X upgrades gave me tangible benefits: 10.9 gave my machine extra battery life, I can now work through a transatlantic flight on a single charge. 10.10 has Continuity which I use all the time when writing text messages and taking phone calls. Whether this is reason for you to upgrade, I don't know.
I have no intention to get an Adobe subscription, although I do pay for Backblaze and Crashplan.
I think you have misread my post as some sort of Adobe ad. I was just claiming that the company as a whole is moving (like most of the software industry) to a software + cloud + service model, and as such a subscription model seems more apt to cover recurring expenses -- just like I pay for Backblaze via a subscription, because they provide a service. So if you move your software company towards integration with the cloud (and I'm not claiming that Adobe's offerings are compelling at the moment), it also makes sense to have more recurring revenue.
The only problem I've had with iOS 8 was that it took me a while to set up Continuity, it was more complicated than it should have been. But I've read the stories, although I don't know how wide-spread the problems are.
It's a question of defaults: what is the default behavior, is it to update silently in the background or not. Power users can (and should) always choose, but I choosing the defaults changes our expectations. I no longer have to hit update manually, and for me (and I consider myself a very experienced user) it's a blessing.
People who grow up with Google Docs and automatically updating apps on smartphones and tablets are growing up with different expectations. I got my first computer over 25 years ago (god, I'm old!), so I understand what the save icon in Word is supposed to symbolize. With Chromebooks you don't even have a choice, you are getting the latest version of the OS, period. And also on the desktop we are slowly moving in this direction, too. You can already tell that OS X users update more readily to the latest OS which allows developers to take advantage of new APIs. Since cross platform software such as Adobe's apps are much less reliant on OS-specific APIs, you don't feel that as much, but especially if you use indy software you see that many of them require at least 10.9 these days.
I was just trying to illustrate (and I might have gone overboard) that I'm aware of Adobe's offerings and I want more of them.
Even for »power users«* (whatever that means), this will change, and the only difference is the rate of change. So while I agree, it's suicide now, in 10 years the discussion is very different.
The claim is based on how software development works these days (inspired by agile development), and the philosophy is different. You can tell already by the frequency of releases: for a long time, Adobe released a new version of, say, Photoshop every other year, now you get one every year. That's not just to »make more money«, it's due to advances in software development. Ditto for Lightroom which was on a yearly schedule (with the exception of v3), and you can see that Adobe has continually released updates in the form of point releases. Some of them contained significant new features. Put another way, the distinction between major (point) releases and updates blurs more and more up to the point where it's hard to figure out. With any big change you will anger people, there is a significant number of users who resist changes if they have to relearn things (ask people who had to use the ribbon for the first time or look at the kerfuffle around Final Cut Pro X). Also here you have advantages with the update often method where you make changes more incremental (I again appeal to the boiling the frog analogy).
