91–100 of 219 posts
This is of course my fault and I have learned to be very wary about what I sign up for, but it doesn't keep me from having an icky feeling of dark patterns that take advantage of psychological behavior.
Ah, so that's why DHH is making noise about Typescript.
How is the "pay once" pricing related to not wanting TS in his project ? Because it happened the same day ?
Man, talk about a ship that has sailed. I was 100% anti-subscription pricing for a very long time. Eventually I realized, it's better for the software vendor and the customer. Final Cut Pro used to cost $999 upfront, now a teenager can use Final Cut on their iPad for $7/month, and subscribe only when they need it.
I, for one, am very grateful for Adobe's shitty subscription model, as it has allowed companies like Serif to launch fantastic products with perpetual licenses.
EDIT: I think I've misunderstood the V2 Universal License. Looks like it means I get access to all version 2 apps from Affinity.
The Ruby on Rails stack may shine with this. Every cloud provider has hosting instructions. With the gem ecosystem, you can eliminate 3rd party SaaS dependencies that most startups rely on. That's why tools like Gitlab, Github Enterprise, etc. are so easy to self-host. I'm most excited to buy Once software so that I can study the source code as an educational resource. This reminds me of TailwindUI, but for SaaS.
> The Ruby on Rails stack may shine with this. I would guess they just give you a Docker container, otherwise supporting different configurations and host machines sounds like too much of a hassle. Even some libraries shipping with the OS could influence the behaviour outside of pinned gems.
Let's go back to wax cylinders, horses & buggies, and the old crank phone while we're at it! Jokes aside: What kind of new features and tangible improvements are coming? I get that "owning" a piece of software can have tangible value; but it depends on the purpose of the software and how it's used. I don't see a sudden revolution where all companies decide they want to run their own email servers and and host their o…
You do GIS projects infrequently as a hobby. Simple stuff. You want own some GIS software. Subscription is burdensome due to infrequent use and you don’t care about next year’s features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is great until a company starts making file formats completely incompatible with back versions, making it impossible to use with friends or anyone else. Oh or when they just change the plan to subscription only anyways. I'm looking at you, Sketch.
I KNEW you were talking about Sketch from the moment I read your first sentence. I have a hypothesis that Figma never would've become so big had they not screwed up so badly with their licensing and lack of seamless collaboration features.
My favourite licensing models for self-hosted software are perpetual fallback licenses. Jetbrains does this well and their description of it is: A perpetual fallback license is a license that allows you to use a specific version of software without an active subscription for it. The license also includes all bugfix updates, more specifically in X.Y.Z version all Z releases are included.
My gripe with the JetBrains license change is that the perpetual license is for a version that's already 12 months old when they have an aggressive release schedule that put's your perpetual license as a _large_ step backwards. I say this as a personal subscriber to the JetBrains Toolbox. I'm unhappy about the mechanics of the fallback license, but I also find utility in paying the subscription for right now (really…
The fact that they do churn out lots of good updates is an argument for SaaS.
Man, talk about a ship that has sailed. I was 100% anti-subscription pricing for a very long time. Eventually I realized, it's better for the software vendor and the customer. Final Cut Pro used to cost $999 upfront, now a teenager can use Final Cut on their iPad for $7/month, and subscribe only when they need it.
The context being that you want a service to be provided to you, with no infrastructure/support overhead, with regular updates, and you want the company providing it to be commercially viable so that the relationship can be ongoing and symbiotic.
And if you're a company buying software, rather than an individual, then all of the above becomes even more important.
I think people's growing aversion to monthly pricing is because it is becoming the default model regardless of the context or whether it's appropriate. And this is especially a problem for individual consumers.
Not everything should be a monthly subscription, but that's where we're heading, and that's where the pushback is.
So this announcement looks simultanesouly interesting, but also slightly odd to me, because I think the monthly subscription model is perfectly appropriate for something like, for example, Basecamp.