MicrostockGroup

See the info on Adobe's site here.

It's an intriguing thought that someone who had intermittent needs for Photoshop (or for the latest version if they didn't have it) might be able to get it for $49 a month every now and then.

What I don't get is why you'd pay $420 a year for a Photoshop subscription versus buying it. Perhaps the notion is that with the upgrade price every 18 months or so it isn't such a bad deal? I'm sure most folks here already own Photoshop, but I wonder who they're expecting will sign up for this? And does this mean that they're having a hard time flogging their overpriced upgrades?

Purchasing a subscription could potentially let you do a tax write-off as an operating expense rather than a capital expense (in the US).

Is it something you do online, so you can use it on different computers?

I'm really surprised that CS5.5 is a paid upgrade at all.  I would expect it to be a free upgrade for those that already have CS5

Adobe software is starting to look very over-priced IMO.

Compare the price of Lightroom vs Aperture. Aperture is $80 on the App Store now. And the new version of Final Cut Pro is going to be $299 on the App Store.

Software companies would love to sell by subscription, because it's a predictable revenue stream and it reduces the need to 'push' upgrades in the market.  I've worked for a couple of software companies that tried subscription models, and Microsoft also tried this with their developer tools. 

It never works.  Subscribers end up feeling they aren't getting their money's worth because the updates they by subscription don't contain enough new content and features.  Software companies find it too difficult to develop and test new functionality in the short timeframes that subscribers expect.