Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

news.ycombinator.com

201–210 of 329 posts

Re: Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

#201
post #154

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.

Minimal maintenance doesn’t take the same size team as making new features.

Re: Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I don't need every upgrade, especially when 9/10 it includes new bugs on essential productivity software.

Plus today it's easier than ever to make updates (or bunches of related updates) selectable and installable on demand. So you could skip 90% of the BS updates you don't care for and get the 10% you do, as opposed to pay the full update price or maintain a subscription... In other words, you could get a base product, they keep maintaining, and even release new versions you can update to for free/cheap, but with featur…

That's how software used to be before they went SaaS.

Re: Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

#203
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why though?

Because If I get a faulty vacuum cleaner I expect to be able to exchange it for a working one for free.

and yet if a lock could be picked, you don't get to exchange it for another one that couldn't be! Analogies breakdown when compared too carefully.

I think software sellers is doing a courtesy when they provide security updates for free. They are not legally obligated to do it. The users are entitled to switch to a competitor however - by not having their data held hostage (which, i think modern laws don't properly address).

Re: Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

#204
post #158
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. To take IntelliJ as an example, I can't think of an improvement since 2018 that I really would pay for. Largely enabling that is why they moved to the subscription process because people like me would use IntelliJ 18 for five or so years then update for OS support or whatever. €100/yr is way more than I used to pay for intelliJ, €240/yr is way more t…

Photoshop CS2 in 2005 was $599 for the full version. Today that's the equivalent of $850. That would pay for 3.5 years with the current subscription model. So if you were upgrading every 2 years it's actually cheaper now, but of course if you wanted to keep the old version for 5 years it would be more expensive.

Right, and the old way let you choose your upgrade cycle, rather than letting the company choose how often they’d like to make you buy.

Re: Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

#205
The software world today is also very different. SaaS has become the norm because the typical user experience for software products spans multiple devices and is a far more connected experience that relies on services carried over the Internet. When you add server-side services into the mix, you have a much-increased variable cost to delivering software that is more difficult to absorb in a once-off price.

While many of us here would prefer the idea of owning and licensing software in perpetuity, the reality is that most users don't care and are typically more price sensitive to the point that they will prefer to pay a small amount monthly than pay a large lump sum once. The monthly pricing mechanism also provides a safety net, as you can stop paying at any time if a product no longer provides utility or if you straight up can't afford it.

At the other end of the spectrum, SaaS works very well for business. Larger companies always paid recurring fees to software vendors anyway - typically as support and maintenance, because they need SLAs and commitments that ensure continuity of being able to use the software in a reliable manner. In the past, these were usually a recurring add-on that was paired up with a major up-front cost. Today, it's reversed where you now might pay a small once-off cost for implementation or delivery, but the bulk of the pricing is weaved into the recurring subscription cost. This works better for most businesses.

Also, a much higher percentage of software makers these days are doing so on the back of venture funding. The north star metric for most venture-backed companies is annual recurring revenue, so a subscription model is almost the default when it comes to a venture-backed startup. When a company is focused on rapid and high scale growth, having to start every year at zero makes it significantly more difficult to succeed.

Re: Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

#206
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. To take IntelliJ as an example, I can't think of an improvement since 2018 that I really would pay for. Largely enabling that is why they moved to the subscription process because people like me would use IntelliJ 18 for five or so years then update for OS support or whatever. €100/yr is way more than I used to pay for intelliJ, €240/yr is way more t…

At least Microsoft are still making personal office subscriptions cheaper than buying office was. 5 users, each with several devices and their own terabyte of OneDrive, is £60 a year at many retailers. I assume they will jack up the price later.

Eh I still chose to buy, I usually use a copy of office for 5-10 years, so it’s still vastly cheaper to buy.

Re: Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

#207
post #63
post #18

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 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. Blame the victim? We din't get any impression, as we don't set the prices. The companies set those prices. For example Adobe customers never got or set any impression that "software should be free/low price". They paid 100s to 1000s of dollars for each update or package r…

> We don't want "super cheap products", we want reasonably priced products we own after we buy.

I'd fully expect someone to provide this if there is a market for it.

Re: Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

#208
The main problem I see with this business model is not the primary characteristics of this model which sound like a rent. But I have a feeling that having such a model does decrease the drive to innovate. In a pay-once model you always need to entice the customer with new features or open up entirely new markets. With subscription, the customer will basically pay for maintenance.

How would the world of cars have looked if it had a primarily subscription model (which will probably come in this area as well)?

So long story short, I find subscription model bad because it drives down innovation.

Re: Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

#209
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they don't stop working on an improved app and new features while you don't want to update. You don't only get compatibility with X with the new version but all that as well.

If no one wants those improvements, why should they pay them to keep working on it? Maybe 1pass should start working on something else to sell, and move the old stuff to minimal maintenance.

>If no one wants those improvements, why should they pay them to keep working on it?

They should not pay them, they should use one of the numerous alternatives.

Re: Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software

#210
post #125

Software is made and supported by software developers and the developers want a recurring pay. Basically they want their employers to subscribe to their services. No wonder the employers transfer the subscription model up the value chain. While there are cases of obvious abuse of the subscription model, in general, the subscription model for complex software is here to stay. Simple, one-off applications that don't re…

It's gone too far obviously. Software like Photoshop should be available to buy, if you don't want the latest features you don't pay for this year's update.

You have a point with Photoshop. Indeed, in some cases, a software application is so saturated with features that no new features are significantly interesting to the users, or the vendor can't figure out how to keep adding value. Microsoft Word is another good example. Demanding recurrent subscription for such software doesn't look fair and the vendor may abuse its market power and dominance. Although, I don't think there is any good solution for this issue except competition.
Post reply on HN