Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by joshuaissac » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:17 AM UTC

porcoda wrote: post #28

southerntofu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're now getting the worst of both worlds. It was not uncommon back in the day you could buy a copy of the software which was bundled with the source code. Now you have to pay and you don't have the source code. You're just trapped into an ecosystem you have no control over. I of course understand your point that software developers need to pay rent, but i'm interested in exploring other possibilities, such as…

Seriously? Since when could you buy COTS and expect to get the code too? I don’t remember a source archive accompanying the pre-subscription Adobe, Microsoft, or any other major piece of software that is now subscription-ware. That’s pure fantasy.

> 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/applerefjan78/page/n78/mode/2up

3. https://archive.org/details/CO16555AtariHomeComputerTechnica...

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

#42

Post by fleddr » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:17 AM UTC

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…

Or...updates nobody asked for. Quite a few casual users might be perfectly happy with Office 2003, or Adobe PS6, as anything after that they don't need. And not just that, they may not want the UI to be revamped every 2 months. The option to just have stable, working software is increasingly taken away.

Not to mention the anti competitive nature of these two parties. They can just bundle an additional app in their subscription at not additional cost, and this way drive a competitor out of business.

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

#43

Post by NicoJuicy » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:18 AM UTC

SAAS, concerned billing, is a desktop application with the optional support fee that became mandatory ( in many cases).

At least, that's how I perceive it.

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

#44

Post by monkey_monkey » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:19 AM UTC

Macha wrote: post #34

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…

> 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…

If that's your IntelliJ usage model, why don't you just go for the perpetual licence and then update after 5 years (or whenever)?

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

#45

Post by ryandrake » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:19 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #19

ique wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a large part of the problem is that so much software (like Office) is turning into a service when it doesn’t need to be.

I think a large part of the problem is that so much software (like Office) is turning into a service when it doesn’t need to be. One significant advantage of SaaS over traditional download-and-run-and-pay-for-updates apps is the fact that everyone is always on the same version. In a large organisation, and across organisational boundaries, working around people using different versions of things is an incredibly inef…

> One significant advantage of SaaS over traditional download-and-run-and-pay-for-updates apps is the fact that everyone is always on the same version.

This is undeniably an advantage to the developer, but much less so for users. When a developer releases a terrible update that removes features or does an unnecessary re-design, in the world of non-SaaS, I could simply choose to stay on the older version. Now that choice is gone and the company is in charge of what version I am using. This is a huge step backwards.

I expect when I obtain software, it will continue to work forever, behave the same way forever, until/unless I choose to update it. That fundamental promise is going away quickly.

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

#46

Post by kaetemi » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:19 AM UTC

Macha wrote: post #34

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…

> 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…

You can get Photoshop for half the price with the Photography bundle. Just includes less cloud space, which you probably don't use.

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

#47

Post by ivanmontillam » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:21 AM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #39

I think it is fair to complain about user-hostile and scammy companies. However, I strongly believe selling software with a one-time fee was the problem in the first place. An ongoing service requires ongoing efforts to keep it stable, secure and modern. Just like you pay for housing on a monthly, recurring basis. It's the same with software. btw: the oldest subscription models are insurances. No one is complaining a…

But the insurances accumulate the money in the event it has to pay for an event that triggers it.

If nothing bad happens or if whatever happens is not covered, the insurance company gets to keep the money. It's a risk management business. It's quite different from a SaaS, imho.

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

#48

Post by matthewmacleod » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:21 AM UTC

I think I tend to think of commercial software in two categories: the stuff that realistically needs to have a service component, and the stuff that works entirely independently.

In my case, I pay subscriptions for things like Strava or Duolingo – software that realistically needs to have a service component and where I want the extra features. I don't really mind this model – the service component is key to their operation and there are offline-only alternatives available. Paying a regular fee is reasonable for software that has an ongoing cost for the seller.

Similarly, there are a bunch of mostly-offline apps that I'm happy to pay a one-off fee for – things like Sublime Text, Dash or BetterTouchTool in my case. Games too, for the most part. I like the model that offers maybe a limited number of future updates free-of-charge, after which another license or an upgrade is needed.

I think the frustration you feel is for software that tries to straddle these categories unnecessarily. Like 1Password – a totally fine software package that worked great for me offline, but which I would now need to subscribe to if I want to continue using it, despite having zero interest in connected features.

Adobe is the worst at this though – I have literally negative interest in any of the "cloud connectivity" features or whatever. They actively make the product worse for me, but they will refuse to take my money in exchange for a one-off license to use software they sell. So now I have the stupid-ass spyware running on my machine in order to bombard me with shitty ads for other things they sell. I hate it.

There is little more annoying that wanting to buy something—and I'm not talking about cheaping out on it either—and having the seller actively refuse to sell it to you. And I think that's where the feeling of frustration comes from – the constant feeling of something trying to trick and manipulate you into becoming a more profitable customer for them by making your experience worse.

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

#49

Post by mft_ » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:24 AM UTC

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 of software from a single payment to a subscription, which over the previous typical lifespan of a single software purchase then costs significantly more. Sure, they bolt on superfluous ‘cloud solutions’, but fundamentally it just feels like an MBA somewhere figured out that they can make more money with a repeating subscription than a single one-off payment – and now they’ve all jumped into it.

Of course, it also has the benefit of protecting better against piracy – though I suspect this isn’t the primary driver for the change.

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

#50

Post by mft_ » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:26 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #19

ique wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a large part of the problem is that so much software (like Office) is turning into a service when it doesn’t need to be.

I think a large part of the problem is that so much software (like Office) is turning into a service when it doesn’t need to be. One significant advantage of SaaS over traditional download-and-run-and-pay-for-updates apps is the fact that everyone is always on the same version. In a large organisation, and across organisational boundaries, working around people using different versions of things is an incredibly inef…

Maybe I’ve been lucky and only worked in well-resourced corporations, but across a ~15 year career in the private sector, I can barely think of any examples where this is the case.

Ironically, a far greater pain point (in my experience) has been poor interchangeability and access to cloud storage solutions between internal and external collaborators.