Why is renting software any different than renting anything else? What you create with it is the only part that matters. 

And, why do you care anyway? You have gimp and blender and all the other freeware out there that you're so fond of. What difference does what Adobe is doing make to someone who doesn't use Adobe? If you don't like them don't use their software. Pretty much as simple as that. 

I think there's nothing wrong at all with renting software, however there are problems with this, and Adobe in particular:

1. Fair Trade Arguments. Adobe achieved market dominance in several key, traditional software markets. They have the ability to force their customers onto a new business model from the previous business model as a result of that. It is an unfair advantage. The US has historically been rather tolerant of that, other places less so. But then, my feeling is that Adobe should NEVER have been able to acquire Macromedia - simply selective products of Macromedia, like Flash (which is what they wanted anyway).

2. Data is Smart Now. What I make in Photoshop is not simply a jpeg or png. It is a file that's full of data that is not transferable outside of the ecosystem where it exists. A great example of this is the painfully slow death of Fireworks. Fireworks uses pngs, but pngs that incorporate additional, proprietary information you cannot exploit outside of Fireworks. If you've spent many, many hours working with non-destructive layers in Fireworks, applications of effects, etc, you know what I am talking about.

3. #1 & #2 = ability to lock you out of your IP investments which are infrastructural. Again, some places, this seems to be okay. There was a case I was told about in Canada, where a company that rents accounting software that was metered made it so that it wasn't possible to actually export your data from their software. They were sued, and ordered to allow companies that no longer use their software to able to access at least some functionality. The facts of #1 and #2 together have real world business ramifications.

Ive always been content to upgrade when an upgrade includes either a feature I need or solves a compatibility problem. My contentment, much like the contentment of other users of mature products, is one of the top reasons why software companies are moving to this new model. When software is first made available and in high demand, you sell a lot of full licenses. Then as the market gets "full" of your offerings, your revenue shifts over to upgrade revenue. But then as the market matures, you end up competing against previous versions of products you've made - in some cases it being self inflicted if you've instead of adding new features to existing products, instead added those features to brand new products. That's where Adobe is. That's where Microsoft is on Windows and Office.

Best regards,

chikako
Meshbox Design | 3D Models You Want