Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 329 posts

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

#211

Post by cube2222 »

_7jf7 wrote: post #183
cube2222 wrote: post #108

I don't really share OP's impressions. I think the move to the subscription model is one of the best things that happened to our industry in the recent years. It's a model which lets you sustainably sell software and keep working on it, delivering updates, etc. The pay per update model forces the creator to release big feature updates, even if the features are just bloat, as bug fix releases and stability work will u…

> I don't see how these are user hostile. They lock you in to continuing to pay even when you no longer derive value. Say you stopped using Photoshop years ago but suddenly need to export one of your old documents. You’re now forced to pay rent to Adobe for at least one month to access one of your own files. And Adobe won’t make it easy to unsubscribe again, which adds to the hassle. > The pay per update model forces…

> Say you stopped using Photoshop years ago but suddenly need to export one of your old documents. You’re now forced to pay rent to Adobe for at least one month to access one of your own files. And Adobe won’t make it easy to unsubscribe again, which adds to the hassle.

Yes, if a software uses a proprietary file format and you lose access to that software, then you can't open the files anymore. That sounds pretty straightforward to me. Though in the case of Photoshop files it doesn't really apply, as a lot of other software accepts their file format.

> Perpetual fallback licenses[1] solve that issue without forcing users to keep paying rent.

That's basically what I meant with paid updates. I know the model, I use Jetbrains software. I don't think the model would work as universally as subscriptions. I expect most people wouldn't keep paying if the maintainers are only doing stability and bug fixing work, as long as these specific issues don't affect them, which in turn would raise the price of a single fallback license.

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

#212

Post by ericd »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #209
ericd wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, and in the case of 1pw, I use Bitwarden instead.

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

#213

Post by skydhash »

rglullis wrote: post #194
coldtea wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could argue it. But they would then have to answer why would non-business buyers, that is, users who did "leave the update treadmill" and bought new updates (or skipped them) at their convenience, suffer the subscription model too?

Because they are such an irrelevant part of the market that they basically could disappear and no one would care, and the hobbyist/non-professional people who don't mind using years-old software could as well just use Free/Open alternatives? There is nothing stopping Joe-who-only-pays-full-licences to continue using his MS 2007 Office suite, is there?

Os support, especially in the Apple world.

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

#214

Post by WA »

All software has an expiration date. Because realistically, you can’t run software bought for Windows XP, because Windows XP is at end of life.

Some software require APIs that cost money to run. Like collaboration features or some number crunching things.

Most software must be updated continuously, because that is the expectation of some users, some platform owners (App Store, the OS, …).

In reality, most software has an expiration date and you can calculate the yearly fee from the expected time till EOL.

Now, the subscription fee can be higher than a one time fee, or not. Depending on your usage.

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

#215

Post by rglullis »

skydhash wrote: post #213
rglullis wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are such an irrelevant part of the market that they basically could disappear and no one would care, and the hobbyist/non-professional people who don't mind using years-old software could as well just use Free/Open alternatives? There is nothing stopping Joe-who-only-pays-full-licences to continue using his MS 2007 Office suite, is there?

Os support, especially in the Apple world.

Right, which is yet another explanation of why companies moved into subscription-based models: unless you are willing to be frozen in time with all your software tools, you will be in the update treadmill one way or another. Bitrot exists, and someone needs to pay for it. A license you paid 15 years ago does not (and should not) cover that.

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

#216

Post by Kbelicius »

chii wrote: post #203
Kbelicius wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ad…

> 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.

There are no locks that can't be picked. If it unlocks itself all the time you bet your ass that I'll get to exchange it for a new one. Maybe you should be more careful when making analogies.

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

#217

Post by aceazzameen »

jtbayly wrote: post #144
tjoff wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recurring expenses very often isn't necessary though. For software the initial costs are big, but after that it can be pretty low maintenance or at least costing much less to develop new features when the foundation is set. When you start to think about recurring expenses that's when you have to find a way to justify those expenses. And that is usually by adding bloat and unnecessary features that those that already…

For example, 1Password. I’m happy to pay for a new version if my current version stops working. OS or browser update broke the app? I’ll pay for the new version. But they are trying to force me to pay every month, therefore they remove my ability to use the app at all unless I pay for their cloud storage which I neither need nor want.

Password managers are an exception for me. I pay them so they can continually stay ahead with device/browser compatibility, security, and breaches.

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

#218

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

porcoda wrote: 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…

> subscription to software that never sees updates nor has infrastructure costs. That’s just a money grab

There is one case I can think of where this makes sense from both the provider and consumer side: niche software that has a high development cost and a small market. In this case, the one-time acquisition cost might be too high for many customers, so moving to a subscription model allows them to use something they couldn't otherwise afford.

Of course, that's not to say that updates shouldn't be expected.

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

#219

Post by TrueGeek »

mft_ wrote: post #49
jpomykala wrote: post #16

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…

Not sure to what extent this applies to you? To my mind, paying for an ongoing service (e.g. translation, or video streaming, or Strava, or whatever) is a reasonable use case for a subscription – if that’s something that suits your end user. (it could also be paid for by individual small payments – or tokens – as suggested elsewhere.) I think the frustration is predominately in companies shifting payment for a piece…

Many end users do not understand the difference between "standalone piece of software" and something that has an ongoing cost for the developer.

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

#220

Post by voisin »

I have no problem paying for SaaS rather than one time when:

1. The SaaS price is significantly cheaper per month and allows for unsubscribing. I view this like a paid short term trial. I actually appreciate this option versus a high up front cost; or

2. When there is ongoing, regular feature or service improvement.

Microsoft and Adobe are two good examples where this is not the case, pushing customers who previously paid a one time fee to pay monthly charges with little additional value being provided.

Post reply on HN