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

91–100 of 329 posts

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

#91

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

I had the same opinion as the OP, when this started, but I have come to be OK with it (in my limited use case).

I need the Adobe Suite, MS Office, and a couple of developer tools, as a day-to-day requirement to do my work. Not an issue. I was already paying to maintain them, usually on a yearly basis.

I used to pay about $900/year for a subset of the CS Suite (I don't remember what it was called, but had Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, and maybe Dreamweaver or InDesign -neither of which I used).

The full CS Suite costs me about $600/yr, and gives me access to every single one of the apps. I don't use InDesign, but every now and then, someone sends me an ID file, and I can download it, open the file, then delete it.

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

#92

Post by hughrr »

I don’t mind paying rent for my stuff. What I do mind is paying a lot of rent for not a lot of stuff.

When you have a $29 a year subscription for a one off use utility app they can fuck off.

When you have a $29 a month subscription for storage, music, TV, fitness, games that spans 6 people I’m fine.

What has changed is extortion for some products which have dubious or little value and really difficult to exit contracts.

The last point is incidentally why I want apple to manage my in app purchases entirely, because you are not submitted to the cancellation will and drama of really horrible organisations with bad policies.

Regarding free software I am probably mostly done with it now because I can’t even pay people to fix issues as a rule nor can I get people to accept fixes I’ve done for free. Usually met with silence on both.

A point on the apple ecosystem is you can share purchases in your family. I paid £7 for a perpetual use of GoodNotes which is used by three people. That’s amazing value.

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

#93

Post by justsomehnguy »

ivanmontillam wrote: post #60
southerntofu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're willing to pay for a license, why not donate to the document foundation instead? This way you get a great office suite (Libreoffice) and every one gets it too. A win-win situation?

Unfortunately in this case, the UI/UX of LibreOffice not even comes close to MS Office's one. Some FOSS products are that great, but if you come from MS Office, LibreOffice feels a lot like an early 2000's downgrade. The compatibility and robustness of LibreOffice is excellent, but the UI/UX and something as simple as the default design templates that come with it, it's just not up to the level of MS Office, and cust…

> the UI/UX of LibreOffice not even comes close to MS Office's one.

Except 'Import CSV' wizard, it's light years ahead of MSO's one, which didn't changed for two decades. Which is understandable, nobody [from the corporate customers with tens thousands of users] cried loud enough.

Also it doesn't even look good. MSO would use ClearType (and whatever) and looks good, LO looks like I'm in 1995 looking at 640x480 14" monitor.

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

#94

Post by tallanvor »

Kuinox wrote: post #5

> Microsoft has used its dominant position to charge for MS Office in perpetuity You can still buy a definitive, noncloud, without subscription of MS Office, and they still release it (there is a 2021 edition).

Yeah, I don't understand their claim around Microsoft either. They're still offering perpetual licenses, and sure, they're integrating OneDrive a lot, but you can still save a document wherever you want on your computer and last I checked, Save As works the same way it always has.

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

#95

Post by rodet »

tjoff wrote: post #90
toyg wrote: 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…

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.

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

#96

Post by jpomykala »

wartijn_ wrote: post #87
n_cusan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds very useful. Mind sharing the link to your service? Thanks.

I'm not OP, but I use https://translationhut.com to manage my translations and it works really well. It can also automatically translate the assets for you, although I don't use that myself. (Full disclosure: I know the guy that makes that service, but am not involved with that project)

"I need to increase my prices" /s

Or start charging in Euro :D

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

#97

Post by hunter-gatherer »

fleddr wrote: post #42
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 su…

Your point needs more attention IMO. Most updates for most software don't add usability or convenience for the end user. The way conversational rhetoric with my family and friends seems to have transitioned from "wow, these computers are cool! This will really help with x" to complete frustration.

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

#98

Post by baxtr »

MerelyMortal wrote: post #72
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…

A lot of software doesn't have to be a "service", such as Photoshop. Photoshop doesn't need to be connected to the internet and receive constant updates. There was never an issue with Photoshop versions having one-time fees.

Of course it does. Software and the components are never bug / loop hole free. SW development doesn't simply stop just because a version was released.

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

#99

Post by coldtea »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #88
coldtea wrote: 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…

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 forever paid top dollar for shrink wrapped and then downloaded software like MS Office or Abobe Creative Suite and co, that now is nonetheless "subscription based".

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

#100

Post by baxtr »

ivanmontillam wrote: post #47
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.

Isn't getting nothing in return even worse?
Post reply on HN