Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

221–230 of 329 posts

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

#221
post #95
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…

In the case of local software, I agree. But most users expect connected services nowadays, which mean recurring costs for the developers as well in many cases.

Only if companies force their users onto “their cloud”. There are plenty of remote storage services; why can’t we use those?

The answer is that it makes it harder to justify perpetual revenue streams then.

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

#222
post #214

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 ha…

I'm not so sure.

I've heard of people keeping a version of XP running to run DAW software, never connecting it to the Internet, because newer versions of Windows have higher audio latency. Old games also don't expire--I'm sure some people still have their DOS machines to play old games, just like people keep their old game consoles.

Also some software is more or less "done". What more does Word need in it, for example?

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

#223
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…

> How do you achieve super cheap products made by people making super high pay? Money doesn’t just materialize out of thin air to make that work.

The marginal cost of another sale approaches zero. So if you make a popular enough product, you can sell many units rather than relying on rent seeking from your existing user base by forcing them into a SaaS subscription. Yes, the onus is now on the company to make good products that people want, and to continue to innovate such that people want to pay for the next upgrade. It’s easier to rent seek.

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't want "super cheap products", we want reasonably priced products we own after we buy. I am afraid the ‘we’ here isn’t nearly as large a demographic as you think it is. If it was, we wouldn’t see the mass of advertising supported products we see. Mainstream consumers do want free / cheap products, despite the many caveats associated with them and the market has adjusted to give them that. The other follow up…

Nobody asked for subscriptions. Nobody likes them. People prefer free and second to that a one-time payment model. Maybe that payment only includes a year of patches, but people still prefer it. Companies prefer subscriptions because it maximizes revenue. It's as simple as that. Zero sum game between company and consumer.

> Nobody likes them.

If that was true, financing wouldn't exist for consumer products. In practice, people pay extra to turn a one-time payment into a subscription.

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

#225
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's not really about free software; it's about paying salaries. Recurring expenses inevitably result in business models optimized for recurring revenues. That was always the case; it just so happened that the expansion of industrial production of goods was so vast for so long, that this was kinda hidden (and it was hard to justify - there are only so many widgets you can continuously supply to customers). Now…

> 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?

[deleted]

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

#226
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 want reasonably priced products we own after we buy

That has [effectively] never been the case

You don't "own" software once you buy it

You own a license to use it (with some level of constraints around how/when/where you use it)

Even if that license happens to let you use it as much as you want anywhere you want, that doesn't mean it will continue to work "forever"

So many people don't understand that digital products are nothing at all like physical ones (except that you pay for both) - you own a paper book (albeit with restrictions on what you can do with it (can't make infinite/excessive copies of parts or all of it, etc), you have a license to an ebook; you don't own a copy of Microsoft Office - you have purchased permission to use it on X-many devices running Y operating system(s)

Even if you "own" some copy of a public domain or freeware tool, it's still constrained by the system(s) it will run on

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

#227
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.

Honest question: Why use 1Password rather than a modern browser’s built in password management?

Side note: Daring Fireball has had some discussion recently about 1Password moving to enterprise for employee password management and adopting the SaaS model in order to make this transition, alienating current client base in the process. A ballsy move!

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

#228
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The problem is that the money and safety (which investors love) provided by “recurring sources of revenue” are too strong to counter with market forces alone.

Kinda like how the money and safety provided by monopolies can’t be corrected by market forces either.

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

#229
Around 200 years ago, we all decided to move into the forest, instead of continuing to take our chances on the plains. It was not one person's decision, and unfolded naturally from the fact that (1) the forest provided benefits like shade from the sun, plentiful foraging, and privacy, and (2) we had invented things like strong rope and canvas, allowing us to better use the forest to make houses, and other resources. It started with one family, and then another. It took a long time, but eventually the elder councils proclaimed: "we are forest people now."

Things worked out great! There was a strong impression among everyone that everybody was getting what they needed in the forest, or at least living in the forest was the best of all possible worlds, now that we were in it. Many had lost a lot on the plains because of lions, and the heat. The general trend towards forest life just felt like a no-brainer. Eventually, some people even rationalized that, because we have fingers and toes that easily grab onto branches, we were probably always meant to live in the forest.

There were some pretty early on who argued that we were better off on the plains, or others who (still pretty early on) argued that if we could successfully live in the forest, we should go ahead and try to make the full, dangerous journey through the main basin of the forest, because supposedly at the other end was a beach, with even more resources.

In the latter group, many people died trying to get through the forest, and those in the former group, those who tried going back to the plains didn't do much better. After enough failures on both sides, our forest society was a little shell shocked, and decided to focus on just optimizing forest life.

It took a while, but eventually people realized that the forest, while it was most assuredly the "best" place to be, had problems. There were bugs, and bears, and as we walked through dense shrubs day by day, we compacted dead leaves under us, and created large swaths of compacted, dead forest floor. This compounded into problems of forest fires, as well as the fact that so many dead leaves produce an unbearable ode=or for some. Some areas of the forest burned up so completely that people found themselves living in, essentially, the plains again.

But we could live with these negatives, it was still the best possible world.

Enough time passed, and people started to not remember there was anything other than forest life, and yet ironically, through some unconscious unease, strived to change the forest in their image, to make it more bright, less infested. People started saying things like: "What if we could remove all the leaves from the trees, except for the ones that we know are strongest, and that way people can see the sun again, and the heat will drive away some of the bugs". Others started to be angry that the forest had so many trees, and started saying: "I love the forest, but I wish we could clear out some of this space here to be completely free from the bugs that come so often."

Others started saying: "Why is it that wherever we go in the forest, the forest bugs follow us, the bears still come and eat us?" Some people try to explain: "That is just what a forest is! You can't have your cake and eat it to: if your gonna live in a forest, there will be bugs and bears, if your angry about it, don't blame the forest, we are the ones that moved in here in the first place."

In general, if trying to get through the forest is out of the question, we got to suck it up and realize we live in the forest, and its not going to get any better, but its not the forest's fault, and its not any one person in the forest that is causing the issues. It's just a forest, there is always bugs and bears in the forest.

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

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't want "super cheap products", we want reasonably priced products we own after we buy. I am afraid the ‘we’ here isn’t nearly as large a demographic as you think it is. If it was, we wouldn’t see the mass of advertising supported products we see. Mainstream consumers do want free / cheap products, despite the many caveats associated with them and the market has adjusted to give them that. The other follow up…

Nobody asked for subscriptions. Nobody likes them. People prefer free and second to that a one-time payment model. Maybe that payment only includes a year of patches, but people still prefer it. Companies prefer subscriptions because it maximizes revenue. It's as simple as that. Zero sum game between company and consumer.

>Nobody asked for subscriptions. Nobody likes them

That's patently false

I, for one, happen to like being able to push costs from capex to opex (and yes, that's true for my own personal use like it is for business use) *for most things) - a subscription price gives me a closer approximation of a given tool's/service's value proposition than does a one-off purchase (most of the time)

Everything from car leases (albeit I typically purchase my cars, leases most definitely have their place for a significant portion of vehicle operators) to Netflix fees come in the form of a "subscription" - follow the terms of the subscription, and you get to use whatever it is as long as you want

Post reply on HN