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

311–320 of 329 posts

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

#311

Post by skydhash »

warrenm wrote: post #231
skydhash wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Os support, especially in the Apple world.

It's not merely "especially in the Apple world" - very little in the way of older Windows/DOS software still works today (unless you're also running old/unsupported hardware (subject to its own foibles) and operating systems Products get deprecated/go out of support all the bloody time - there is nothing wrong with that : should Ford have to "support" the Edsel or Model T today "for free"? Why?

The only thing I don't like about subscription is rent-seeking. I'm fine paying a small amount every month if I expect security updates or small features that won't impede my workflow. If there is a lot of request for additional features, you can always bump up to a new version. If there aren't, that means your product is mature, or you may need to market to a different segment. But I'm not paying you every month just to shuffle the UI around or to be able to access my data.

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

#312

Post by mihaaly »

ryandrake wrote: post #38

A lot of comments are already addressing this horrible trend of moving from standalone native software to “SaaS” but this one is also terrible: > now trying to trick people to use One Drive more A lot of software are now deliberately blurring the line between local storage and cloud storage, not just Office. When I choose to save a file, I expect to save it locally to my hard disk, in a file that I can find and manip…

Despite the implications of being placed in an opaque internet location I did a test on iCloud not long after its introduction to see if it could be used for non-sensitive things but the very first test scared me away at the point of turning off cloud sync on my Mac, notifying me that 'your local files will be deleted'. Very, very scary that (unknowingly!) I make the primary location into the cloud on setting up iCloud storage and that takes precedence and instead of just breaking link and leave disconnected items in place data loss is forced on me on my premises. To me this is - sorry for the strong word but this is the proper one here - idiotic design.

I use cloud sync only for my contact list now where practicalities override privacy concern. Just recently, after years of usage (with lots of problems, merging various devices the wrong way, ending up in duplications, ghost contacts, inflated list with garbage) I turned off the sync on a computer getting retired with offering the option 'keep contact list locally' but it did not work. Selecting this option still erased ALL contacts from my local computer. Which actually was an intended way eventually, so no harm is done this specific time, but shown how unreliable and dangerous is using iCloud on top of the privacy concerns. I will remain using it for contacts - with the aforementioned problems - but will need extra care on making changes to it.

It is 'ironic' when there is an intended conveninece functionality that eventually makes your life more complex and miserable than before, without that.

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

#313

Post by mihaaly »

Tepix wrote: post #121
jsmith99 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a trade off between privacy and security when it comes to backups. For the average user, cloud backup is probably the right choice.

Does this justify harassing users over and over again? I know many people are annoyed by the dialogues that popup these days where they ask your something they want ("do you allow xyz?") and the only two choices you have is "yes" and "not now" and they proceed to ask you again and again. Same with with cookie dialogues. The vast majority of cookie dialogues employ dark patterns that make you give up the maximum amoun…

The whole notification center in Mac is just a harrasment tool for me. Difficult to turn off, needs atomic actions for each and every app separately, new ones has the default on for whatever things those want to bother me about, non time sensitive or communication software (e.g. photo editing) send notifications if left on unnecessarily, no option for permanently and explicitly disable but only workarounds and dirty tricks to get rid of if you do not need the whole thing (like you have your own reliable way of processing events not relying on assistance). It is only an annoyance that is forced on me not a helpful feature this way. I have to spend time repeatedly to discard it in useless cases, distracts me from my activities not helping me, it is in the way constantly despite the workaround (without which it would be even more distracting, would be a constant distraction).

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

#314

Post by marginalia_nu »

coldtea wrote: post #303
marginalia_nu wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blame the victim? I don't think it makes sense to call anyone making an informed decision to overpay for a service a victim. If you don't think the deal is reasonable, then don't accept the deal and use something else. The exception being profiteering in the case of a shortage, but I don't think this is the case. There is no software shortage being taken advantage of.

> I don't think it makes sense to call anyone making an informed decision to overpay for a service a victim. No, those I'm calling victims are people like me, who would like to buy the update and own it, but are instead forced in a subscription - which if they ever have to stop paying for whatever reason (e.g. out of a job, medical bills, etc) they lose their access to the programs they've been paying for month over…

I don't think you are a victim because you don't agree with the the terms of an offer. As you said, the actual changes are minimal. You can just reject the deal and stick to your old version, if you don't think it's worth it.

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

#315

Post by rglullis »

skydhash wrote: post #311
warrenm wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not merely "especially in the Apple world" - very little in the way of older Windows/DOS software still works today (unless you're also running old/unsupported hardware (subject to its own foibles) and operating systems Products get deprecated/go out of support all the bloody time - there is nothing wrong with that : should Ford have to "support" the Edsel or Model T today "for free"? Why?

The only thing I don't like about subscription is rent-seeking. I'm fine paying a small amount every month if I expect security updates or small features that won't impede my workflow. If there is a lot of request for additional features, you can always bump up to a new version. If there aren't, that means your product is mature, or you may need to market to a different segment. But I'm not paying you every month jus…

You don't get to decide what is "small features" and if you start fragmenting software into multiple releases you are going to make it more expensive for everyone, because now the company is supposed to maintain N versions because you are a special snowflake.

Or you can sidestep the whole thing entirely and use/fund/ promote Free Software. Your "small monthly amount" will go a long way and you will be free to pick and choose as you want.

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

#316

Post by coldtea »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #314
coldtea wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it makes sense to call anyone making an informed decision to overpay for a service a victim. No, those I'm calling victims are people like me, who would like to buy the update and own it, but are instead forced in a subscription - which if they ever have to stop paying for whatever reason (e.g. out of a job, medical bills, etc) they lose their access to the programs they've been paying for month over…

I don't think you are a victim because you don't agree with the the terms of an offer. As you said, the actual changes are minimal. You can just reject the deal and stick to your old version, if you don't think it's worth it.

>You can just reject the deal and stick to your old version, if you don't think it's worth it.

Which gets incompatible and can't run with changes to OS, plugin SDKs, and so on.

Victim here doesn't mean "they put a gun on your head".

It means they removed a specific update model and replaced with a shitty one, while doubling the prices, and fucking you over if you want to continue using the platform.

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

#317

Post by hyphz »

pimterry wrote: post #40

I don't think this is fundamentally about subscriptions. They're a different business model, but there are positives too: for example they align what users pay far more closely with the value they get from a product. If you use a tool for one month, you pay a small amount, if you use it every month for years you pay more. In the old world, if you wanted to use purchase-once software just once, then you had to pay far…

If it was possible to subscribe only when you [i]used[/i] the software it would be fine, but even that would be awkward.

I mean, the best case I can think of is Quantrix. It's an innovative spreadsheet progrem that tries to bring back the standards of Lotus Improv. I don't know of any equivalent in OSS. It used to have a perpetual license with small upgrades and while it was quite expensive, it means it could be bought to learn and experiment and if you needed to convince your boss to try it it's not that much of a layout.

Then the company that makes it was bought by a financial services company who re-targeted at that market. They do not list the pricing on their site any more. Want to know what it is? $2000 a year, immediate and total loss on lapse. So basically individuals can't access it anymore, nobody can learn it, and there's very little chance of any company that doesn't already know it or doesn't have money to burn taking it up. Which is a kick in the teeth, because I think many people agree that the standard spreadsheet is a crock, and what was showing signs of being interesting or innovative in that area is now a locked-down rich club. I guess you could write an OSS version if you were up for being sued over spurious software patents by a company whose backers can just manufacture money at will. Yea.

Or how about TheBrain? Their model had the potential for a ton of innovation based on evolving semantic technologies. What was their business model instead? Patent the Plex model to lock out competitors, push everyone's Brains into the cloud, go subscription, and then just sit. The upgrades have become smaller and smaller since the subscription came in.

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

#318

Post by Hnrobert42 »

coldtea wrote: post #99
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not blaming the victim as there are no victims. OP’s is wrong that SaaS is rent sending. Software should not be free (in cost), yet always receive new features and updates. Indeed, the alternative is the ad-tech surveillance state.

That's a strawman. Who exactly demanded "free in cost" plus "always receive new features and updates"? If the software companies (in mobile in particular) had a race to the bottom, it's on them - and on those (hobbyists etc) that undercutted them (though, if hobbyists can undercut your prices, is your product really worth that much, or could it just as well be replaced with a hobbyist-made app?). Users have since for…

Well if this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. You raise the statesman that I said people claim software should be both free and maintained indefinitely. I did no such thing. I merely asserted that it should not be.

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

#319

Post by Hnrobert42 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #265
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not blaming the victim as there are no victims. OP’s is wrong that SaaS is rent sending. Software should not be free (in cost), yet always receive new features and updates. Indeed, the alternative is the ad-tech surveillance state.

> Indeed, the alternative is the ad-tech surveillance state. One way to increase recurring revenue when you have a captive audience (i.e. they can't refuse an update) is by adding adware to your software. I think SaaS is the driving force behind the ad-tech surveillance state, not the thing that will save us from it.

Can you give me some examples of SaaS that has ads? Cable TV, Hulu, newspapers. They all do it, but I can’t think of any SaaS providers that also push ads. I suppose cross-promoting s/w from the same vendor is an ad, but those kinds of ads don’t require intrusive surveillance.

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

#320

Post by Hnrobert42 »

claaams wrote: post #130
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not blaming the victim as there are no victims. OP’s is wrong that SaaS is rent sending. Software should not be free (in cost), yet always receive new features and updates. Indeed, the alternative is the ad-tech surveillance state.

In the case of Adobe you are paying for near malware Levels of surveillance on your device to use their products.

Like what?
Post reply on HN