Adobe editing software the most used in the world for a reason.

Well, I have different opinion about the LR issue David. I keep my raws, and I take my edits as definitive, and export them into JPEGs.
That´s all that is to it. Edit settings? "Why would I trust anyone with these"? What if superior software emerges, that outdoes Adobe or DXO big time? What if they update the tool and so it acts differently even if you stayed subscribed? It is not very wise nor safe to trust someone with this. With no judgement, I would call it irresponsible from your side. You do that at your peril. And you are lucky that Adobe was bold enough about that for you to luckily realize that.

I have not tried Darktable or the like, mostly because I seem to be limited in recent years with respect to learning new software.

In terms of the principle of things though, I absolutely refuse to cave in to adopting the subscription model. To me, with software, once you've downloaded it and installed it, that's it. It should work for forever and into infinity. It should work offline. As for how the company is going to make money going forward, oh well, figure it out, but not that way, no way no way.

Incidentally I use Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS2. I don't retouch much. About all I do are RAW edits of white balance, exposure compensation, sharpness etc and then maybe "clone" out a mole in portraits or bits of trash in landscapes. That's it. Much more than that, and at that point it becomes phony AI fraud in my opinion.

Regardless, LR5 and PS2 work for all time, which is as it should be.

As much as I hate the rental model, I don't understand this particular complaint. You edit your images and be done with them. You can still view, catalog and export. In fact, I think you can still import and even edit (with Quick Develop - so limited editing) new images. You can still use QD on old images (I think - I don't subscribe).

The service you're renting is the ability to edit images (and to get mapping data). So it makes sense that it goes away when you stop renting.

I think you're suggesting that what they should have disabled when you stop paying is import rather than Develop. I guess that's one way to do it.

I would rather keep import. In this case you can use it as a pretty good DAM and printing software.

Can't you just use another editor? It's not like they eat your pictures. Everything I subscribe to runs out when I cancel the subscription. And I'm ok with that - part of the deal.

You can "buy" Photolab or other but when it's upgraded you won't get the new benefits if you don't pay again. Same goes with your car etc.

I'd have to disagree there, Darktable has a ton more functionality than Lightroom and you don't need PS because Darkroom offers all the tools you'll ever need to produce high quality images without using resource intensive layering. Darktable 4 has a very impressive feature set and the masking tools are unmatched anywhere else. You can also use it comfortably on lower end computers and it'll recognise pretty much any raw file you throw at it (Maybe Sigma X3F's being the exception, which is not uncommon). Add that to the fact it's completely free and regularly updated and you have a winning package. The main issue is that it takes some time to learn fully and get the best out of it, so if you don't want to spend time doing that then the commercial offerings may be a better choice on that basis. That being said, once you've got your head around it then it can be easily configured and fast to process files to taste. If you do need to use layers to blend images then Gimp or Affinity Photo will do that job very well. Cataloguing images can be done with a whole host of programs, either free or commercial and you're not tied to the whole Adobe subscription thing.

How do I get to Carnegie Hall ?

LMAO

Why limit your use and enjoyment of a product out of fear of an uncertain future?

It's been nearly 10 years since Adobe released Creative Cloud. They haven't gone bankrupt. The products haven't become junk ware. If Adobe were to disappear from the face of the Earth tomorrow, I'd have gotten a decade of use from multiple great products.

I'd still have all my photos. They'd still be organized by year, date, and shoot on my hard drive. Adobe has no control over that. Would I agonize over having lost the processing done to the photos in my catalog? Maybe. For about 5 minutes.

I'd subscribe to or buy whichever product I consider to be the best option and move forward. I'd keep doing photography and use the new product to process the subjects from those images. If there's an archived photo I decide to print, license, or sell, I'd process it. Life goes on.

For those who worry about such things, LrC does offer the option of saving all processing & editing to XMP files; one for each image. Personally, that's a step, time, and additional drive space I don't need. But it's there for those who want it.

For me, the whole point of Lightroom is to do everything in one place and not create derivative files. That's its entire reason to exist.

Yes, if you're getting something new each month (like a magazine, newspaper, or "fruit of the month" club). With software, you aren't. You already have it.

Exactly, and this is the great advantage of purchasing instead of renting - you can choose to pay for an upgrade, or not. For example, the new version of my car came out this year. I like it less than my model so I'm choosing to keep what I have, pay nothing, and not upgrade. If Adobe produces an "upgrade" I don't like or want, I have no choice but to pay for it anyway.

Rest of my life for me.

I have auto-write XMP turned on. They are tiny, and use zero time to write because it's done automatically in the background.

I'll give a specific reason I hate the rental model of software - Lightroom.

Lightroom 6.14 has a lot of what I need, but it's missing a feature I'd use on almost every image. I can round-trip to use that (I have external software that has the functionality) but that's slow, painful, and creates derivative file that use up space and need to be cataloged, so I do it only very rarely. My images suffer as a result.
I've been asking for that functionality since version 3. They haven't provided it. None of what they have provided since 6.14 would help me very much, but I would have paid them 6 years * $120 per year = $720 for nothing I would use. $720 wasted. I'd gladly pay for an upgrade if it included the feature I need, and I've done that in the past many times, but paying continuously and getting nothing is frustrating and so I don't do it.

I'd make a different photo. This scenario is a common occurrence in the wildlife photography I do. If the available light is so low that freezing the action will only result in an image having unacceptably poor quality, I pivot and make a different photo. I'd drag the shutter and target the goal of making a photo with exaggerated motion blur but the subject's head and face still sharp. I may only get one or two keepers from 100 shots...but one is all I need.

Just curious, what feature would that be?

Having made the painful shift to darktable and worked out how to use it I now recognise it as a better product. LR is only of use for my older work, much of which still remains to be edited. No way am I going to subscribe to a product that requires me to subscribe to it for the rest of my life to guarantee I still have access to any edits. The mere thought of the coercion involved in this model turns my stomach.

I think it depends on your workflow.

Prior to embracing LR, I had a ridiculous workflow that at one point was a pipeline involving 13 separate software products between raw and picture hanging on the wall.

LR changed everything and taught me that one product really can do everything. Since then I have lost any interest in exporting files to tifs and jpgs, I want them to stay raw from start to finish.

I think if I was still outputting a finished image to a universal format like jpg, I wouldn't be so bothered, the raw edits would be a means to an end, the end being the jpg which could be tweaked in any product should LR suddenly vanish from the planet. However, a raw only workflow means your edits can only really be managed in the one product, and if that product is denied you, you're back to having a back catalogue of unedited raws.

I have no intention of re-editing 20,000 raw files from scratch...

As I replied to another poster, I once used a very complex workflow involving many products. That workflow inevitably involved all sorts of interim files swapped between products. Looking through my my pre-LR images, I can find images with 20 duplicates, all with slightly different names. I have no idea now which is the final image. It's important to me to have a neat and tidy back catalogue. I want one image of each image, not 20, not 5, not even 2. The only way to keep things tidy is to use one single editor that takes the image from raw to final edit all within the one file. And that means a powerful raw editor. LR 6.14 does that role very well. For current and future images, darktable has taken over. Out of curiosity, I'm interested in what new versions of LR could do, but not at the price of "edit hostage hell". Adobe can try on whatever customer strategy they want, but not with my files.

To the best of my knowledge, you will not lose access to your edits when your unsubscribe from Lightroom. You will still be able to export and print with all your previous edits applied.

But I can no longer edit those files. All I can do is export them and edit the exported file in another package, creating a duplicate. Not what I call keeping access to my edits.