161–170 of 329 posts
To be blunt, you seem like you're ranting and your conjecture is not wrong but just, opinionated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would still gladly pay for updates—nobody expected to get updates for free, we always did it that way before. My impression is that the AppStore model, with the updates provided for free (for bug fixes, etc) is what began that shift to subscriptions. Before the App Store, it wasn’t easy to update software, so it was straightforward to lock updates behind paid upgrades.
> nobody expected to get updates for free if there's a security vulnerability, i'm sure you'd expect the update to be free.
This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. Given that developers need to be paid, and resources cost money, there needs to be a way to rectify that gap between the consumer and maintainer. At one point we did so by paying for an initial version of software, and then paying for updates. Now that we don’t do that, but…
This sounds true, but isn't. Some software grow new features and should sell new versions to users who want those features. But many applications continue to be rented while they reached peak features a long time ago.
Office 97 was fine. Office 2003 was more than fine. You buy it once, you should not need to buy it again, or "rent" it, for no benefit at all. Same for Windows NT / 7. Every Windows version since 7 is worse than the previous one!
Developers need to be paid only if they build something users want. Many times, the opposite seems to be the case: they build things users would really prefer not to have, yet are difficult to avoid.
Dump these sorts of products and use FOSS replacements instead, preferably ones licensed under the AGPL so that SaaS-ification doesn't take us right back to where we are now.
Okay, I'll bite: And ten years later, when all developers who did the development for these FOSS products are only found on a sheep farms (because duh, somehow FOSS projects developed in your free time doesn't pay for a 3 bedroom house in SF and nobody bothers to pay for a free (as in beer) *GPL products and all Subscription companies are bankrupt because everyone went *GPL), who would develop these FOSS replacements…
This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. Given that developers need to be paid, and resources cost money, there needs to be a way to rectify that gap between the consumer and maintainer. At one point we did so by paying for an initial version of software, and then paying for updates. Now that we don’t do that, but…
> Given that developers need to be paid, and resources cost money This sounds true, but isn't. Some software grow new features and should sell new versions to users who want those features. But many applications continue to be rented while they reached peak features a long time ago. Office 97 was fine. Office 2003 was more than fine. You buy it once, you should not need to buy it again, or "rent" it, for no benefit a…
But that's still work! So your only chance is to abandon the software and reap the insults coming from clients who upgraded to a new Windows installation and can no longer run your software.
If there was some realistic ways to bundle software in a fashion that it will continue to run forever even if environment changes, then sure–but your software better not be networked. (This is also where docker and the likes come into play).
I’m running a super simple translation management system where people can manage, host, auto-translate their translation files. How I supposed to run my app without subscriptions? In last 30 days, I transferred over 280 GB of translation data from my service to end-users around the word. Should I tell DeepL, Google and AWS that they should offer me their services for free or what? EDIT: I apologize if this sounds too…
I absolutely see your point. So here is a suggestion that might make it less annoying for users. I don't know if it will help you but for some businesses it should be a great idea (and I will prefer those who follow this model): Use tokens instead of subscriptions. Even if I end up paying the same on average this feels a whole lot better. There are just too many services out there that wants me to subscribe, and ever…
Almost every time I’ve seen someone try that pricing model customers end up hating it and want a flat fee subscription.
I do think making it easy to pause and restart subscriptions is an underused model but would also bet lots of price smart SaaS companies have looked at that.
I don’t mind paying rent for my stuff. What I do mind is paying a lot of rent for not a lot of stuff. When you have a $29 a year subscription for a one off use utility app they can fuck off. When you have a $29 a month subscription for storage, music, TV, fitness, games that spans 6 people I’m fine. What has changed is extortion for some products which have dubious or little value and really difficult to exit contrac…
I think the most egregious example I have seen recently was that company charging $30/month to give you a cloud hosted Chrome instance that you view with a stream ala remote desktop... through an electron app[0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26957215
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, it's not really about free software; it's about paying salaries Well, that's on the software maker. Why pay salaries in perpetuity for something made and sold once?
Almost no software these days is "made and sold once" because of network support - even the most "local" apps will have stuff like saving settings or document to remote servers, talking to network peers, receiving updates when new OS versions are released, and so on. Anything sold on Apple platforms, for example, nowadays has to be updated at least once a year just to keep up.
Incorrect.
This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. Given that developers need to be paid, and resources cost money, there needs to be a way to rectify that gap between the consumer and maintainer. At one point we did so by paying for an initial version of software, and then paying for updates. Now that we don’t do that, but…
I would still gladly pay for updates—nobody expected to get updates for free, we always did it that way before. My impression is that the AppStore model, with the updates provided for free (for bug fixes, etc) is what began that shift to subscriptions. Before the App Store, it wasn’t easy to update software, so it was straightforward to lock updates behind paid upgrades.
Every single comment thread on Parallels releasing update is crying "money grab" over and over.