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

291–300 of 329 posts

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

#291

Post by arepublicadoceu »

dont__panic wrote: post #281
arepublicadoceu wrote: post #264

I keep a personal txt file named "cemetery_of_paid_apps.txt" it's where I hold all the apps that I paid and latter became subscription based as a reminder of how stupid I was of paying for apps. So far the list: 1. Fantastical 2. Unread 3. Notability 4. 1password 5. Infuse 6. 1blocker 7. PocketCast 8. Ulysses I'm well aware that some grandfathered their previous paid licenses after a lot of noise (Notability). But I…

PocketCasts actually granted previous purchasers a free Pro subscription in perpetuity because of community backlash. That one really annoys me because I would happily pay $5 for Pro PocketCasts functionality for a year or two, but I'm not going to pay a recurring fee every month since I don't care about any cloud storage or sync functionality. On that note... if you don't want to use your free Pro PocketCasts subscr…

Where exactly is my pro pocket cast subscription? I bought the iOS app and, before that, the android app. And they still ask me to pay for the pro.

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

#292

Post by lenocinor »

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…

I appreciate this reply. I often see nerds on the internet decry things without understanding the needs or motivations of people not like them, especially on topics that really bother nerds. Thanks for pushing hard to do that personally. It’s inspiring me to try to do it more too.

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

#293

Post by omnomynous »

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…

>Money doesn’t just materialize out of thin air to make that work.

Except when money does materialize out of thin air with fractional reserve banking. That's not for us, though. Obviously, we all know that burnin'-money for us tech folks grows on VC trees these days.

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

#294

Post by kokekolo »

warrenm wrote: post #286
ryandrake wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> software is likely not usable after 3-5 years Whoa whoa wait! How did we get to this point? Maybe I’m living in the past, but software should work essentially forever. There are no moving parts. No wear/maintenance items. It doesn't distort like a photocopy when loaded to and from media. The only thing that should cause working software to fail is some underlying change to its foundation: an incompatible OS or brow…

>software should work essentially forever Really? You're still running operating systems that are a decade old on hardware even older? Why?

I own Lightroom 4.0 from 2012 (that's 10 years ago). It doesn't have the latest features, but it's still a very capable RAW processing software. I don't use it anymore because I've subscribed to the current Lightroom. I've subscribed last year, because (finally!) the new features were compelling enough for me. The old version still works well, even on latest-ish macOS. It still produces great pictures now, as it did 10 years ago.

10 years is not that long ago. In computers and software the difference between 2022 and 2012 is not as big as it was between 1992 and 2002.

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

#295

Post by doctor_eval »

DarylZero wrote: post #289
warrenm wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>software should work essentially forever Really? You're still running operating systems that are a decade old on hardware even older? Why?

The newer versions of OSes aren't supposed to break compatibility, and in fact they really don't. The really old programs run in emulators. This is how I play 1980s video games. I highly recommend Mario Brothers (not "Super") from 1983. Still works.

But has it worked continuously on contemporary platforms for the entire period of its existence? I reckon there were many years between the retirement of the original platform and your ability to emulate that platform.

The point is that software should remain usable, but in your example that hasn’t been the case.

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

#296

Post by jodrellblank »

warrenm wrote: post #230
willis936 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> follow the terms of the subscription, and you get to use whatever it is as long as you want

But you can run software you bought with capex as long as you want and it doesn’t cost more forever. And you don’t have to agree to new terms and conditions.

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

#297

Post by ericd »

warrenm wrote: post #284
Macha wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you _seen_ the IT infrastructure of some non-tech companies? The amount of companies that had to scramble for the Windows 7 (released 2009) EOL in 2020?

I'm aware that some laces are completely unaware of the world around them Doesn't change the fact that the world keeps going whether you're paying attention or not

Do you think version 21 of a piece of desktop software is usually substantially better than version 20? Do you think those places are missing out on a lot?

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

#298

Post by doctor_eval »

ndiddy wrote: post #185
joshuaissac wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since when could you buy COTS and expect to get the code too? Since the 1950s and 1960s. IBM, for example, provided source code for their products until 1983.[1] The full Apple II source code was included in the Apple II Reference Manual;[2] similarly for the Atari 400/800 Technical Reference Notes.[3] 1. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hSBrPSYgjI4C&redir_esc=y (page 59) 2. https://archive.org/details/applerefj…

If anyone is curious what happened in 1983, that’s the same year that Apple Computer Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. set the precedent that binary data is covered by copyright (before this case, only source code was covered).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Fran....

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

#299

Post by doctor_eval »

AlexandrB wrote: post #263
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…

> 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. This didn't happen by accident. Apple still refuses to add a paid version upgrades feature to the App Store. And by providing software like Numbers/Pages at a loss (for free) they normalized a zero or near zero cost of software in their ecosystem. At this point I'm pretty…

I don’t think I read it at the time, but Joel’s explanation of what was going to happen to Sun was prophetic, and also explained some of the craziness of Java that I’ve never been able to work out.

I also agree with you about Apples’s position re upgrades, which - until now - I found quite baffling. I guess that the subscription model is intended by Apple to create both a lower barrier to entry (cheaper in the short term) which reduces the entry cost for complements, and long term recurring revenue which potentially creates a lock-in effect - quitting the ecosystem means losing access to the investment in apps on the platform. It’s win-win from Apple’s perspective.

On the other hand I have always argued that when you write an app for iOS, you’re creating an accessory for their devices, and so you do so on Apple’s terms. (That’s fine IMO, as long as you understand that this is what you’re doing).

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

#300

Post by boppo1 »

pydry wrote: post #32

This appears to me to be less about subscriptions per se and more about how VC and public markets drive tech companies to dial up the rent extraction to 11 at the first available opportunity. At this point it seems like the capital markets have long past moved from symbiosis with the productive economy into parasitism and are now accelerating their killing of the host.

I blame loose monetary policy.
Post reply on HN