5 ms·

This comes up in so many threads here... How can we change the culture of subscriptions back to pay once???

necovek 1y ago
It's not really about the culture anymore. Software that requires maintenance — and most does — has a continuous development cost. As such, subscription is the most natural way to cover it. On the other hand, we have software which has low maintenance cost, but sold for peanuts ($0-$10) in small quantities, so authors try to introduce alternative revenue streams. As in, it's fair to pay continuously (subscription) for continuous work (maintenance), so I don't expect that to go away. Ads, though, yuck...
- sneak 1y ago
  Software sold today does not require maintenance. Software to work in the future requires maintenance. I am not buying future software. I am buying today software. Increasingly I am not buying software at all.
  - sgarland 1y ago
    On the contrary, software today is so absurdly buggy that it often does require maintenance to work.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    This is a good argument in favor of subscriptions not being mandatory, but not in favor of the abolishment of subscriptions overall, which is what they were talking about.
    - 3036e4 1y ago
      That is the old way. You bought some application and it came with upgrades until next major version release or similar. Then when that release came out you could decide to pay again or just keep using the old (now unsupported) version you already paid for. That solved all the issues with paying for maintenance, but sadly someone must have figured out a mandatory subscription was a better way to make more money.
      - johannes1234321 1y ago
        It's not only a way to make more money, but it also matches better to modern development approaches. Major versions come from a time where one had to produce physical media. Thus one could do a major release only every few years. Back then features had to be grouped together in a big bang release. Nowadays one can ship features as they are being developed, with many small features changes all the time.
        3036e4 1y ago
        That was probably true a long time ago, but I bought software using that model that did not have any physical releases and at least one had frequent minor releases adding new features. It seems to me like the "subscription model" is exactly the same, except for the use of DRM and cloud dependencies to force users to pay for new versions. The only thing that changed was that the option to remain on an old version was taken away from users.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    Even ignoring security, bug fixes, new features, etc it is also not fair that you can get value from the app every month, but the developer doesn't get to capture a reward for any of this value. Having people pay monthly for value they get monthly seems reasonable.
    - BenjiWiebe 1y ago
      Does that mean you'd be in favor of subscriptions for owning a vehicle, rather than paying outright? Or a house? The manufacturer/builder gets paid once, and you get value monthly.
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        Leasing cars and renting houses is already a common practice. So yes I believe these make sense to exist. The existence of purchasing cars and houses with no ongoing cost to the builder is due to competition.
        BenjiWiebe 1y ago
        Also leasing cars isn't usually (ever?) from the manufacturer of the car. Houses, not sure how it's done in more populous areas, but around here you don't ever rent from the builder. You rent from someone who bought the house from a builder (or bought from someone who did, etc etc).
    - mpascale00 1y ago
      I disagree. You can read a book or listen to a record, watch a dvd, unlimited times, having fairly paid upfront a price for the item. A computer is general purpose and lets you check your email every day, hell even lets you create new value in the form of new software, without the manufacturer receiving a royalty. The idea of capturing reward post-receipt is feudalistic.
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        The existence of products in competitive markets is not a counter example to what my point was. I recommend looking at the terms bottom up pricing and top down pricing. The former is about creating a price based off of how much it costs to do business and then adding a profit margin. The latter is creating price in line with how much value it offers customers. The existence of products using bottom up pricing doesn't mean top down pricing does not exist.
sgarland 1y ago
Given how profitable it is, I doubt it’ll be changed. That said, I very much like Codeweavers’ approach [0], which IMO is the modern equivalent to purchasing software on a physical medium: you buy it, you can re-download it as many times as you’d like, install it on as many machines as you’d like (single-user usage only), and you get 1 year of updates and support. After that, you can still keep using it indefinitely, but you don’t get updates or paid support. You get a discount if you renew before expiry. They also have a lifetime option which, so far, they’ve not indicated they’re going to change. I have no affiliation with them, I just think it’s a good product, and a good licensing / sales model. [0]: https://www.codeweavers.com/store https://www.codeweavers.com/store
- mpascale00 1y ago
  Profitable for sure, but I'm often half surprised by the lack of competition against subscription-based everything these days.

It's not really about the culture anymore. Software that requires maintenance — and most does — has a continuous development cost. As such, subscription is the most natural way to cover it. On the other hand, we have software which has low maintenance cost, but sold for peanuts ($0-$10) in small quantities, so authors try to introduce alternative revenue streams. As in, it's fair to pay continuously (subscription) for continuous work (maintenance), so I don't expect that to go away. Ads, though, yuck...

sneak 1y ago
Software sold today does not require maintenance. Software to work in the future requires maintenance. I am not buying future software. I am buying today software. Increasingly I am not buying software at all.
- sgarland 1y ago
  On the contrary, software today is so absurdly buggy that it often does require maintenance to work.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  This is a good argument in favor of subscriptions not being mandatory, but not in favor of the abolishment of subscriptions overall, which is what they were talking about.
  - 3036e4 1y ago
    That is the old way. You bought some application and it came with upgrades until next major version release or similar. Then when that release came out you could decide to pay again or just keep using the old (now unsupported) version you already paid for. That solved all the issues with paying for maintenance, but sadly someone must have figured out a mandatory subscription was a better way to make more money.
    - johannes1234321 1y ago
      It's not only a way to make more money, but it also matches better to modern development approaches. Major versions come from a time where one had to produce physical media. Thus one could do a major release only every few years. Back then features had to be grouped together in a big bang release. Nowadays one can ship features as they are being developed, with many small features changes all the time.
      - 3036e4 1y ago
        That was probably true a long time ago, but I bought software using that model that did not have any physical releases and at least one had frequent minor releases adding new features. It seems to me like the "subscription model" is exactly the same, except for the use of DRM and cloud dependencies to force users to pay for new versions. The only thing that changed was that the option to remain on an old version was taken away from users.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Even ignoring security, bug fixes, new features, etc it is also not fair that you can get value from the app every month, but the developer doesn't get to capture a reward for any of this value. Having people pay monthly for value they get monthly seems reasonable.
  - BenjiWiebe 1y ago
    Does that mean you'd be in favor of subscriptions for owning a vehicle, rather than paying outright? Or a house? The manufacturer/builder gets paid once, and you get value monthly.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      Leasing cars and renting houses is already a common practice. So yes I believe these make sense to exist. The existence of purchasing cars and houses with no ongoing cost to the builder is due to competition.
      - BenjiWiebe 1y ago
        Also leasing cars isn't usually (ever?) from the manufacturer of the car. Houses, not sure how it's done in more populous areas, but around here you don't ever rent from the builder. You rent from someone who bought the house from a builder (or bought from someone who did, etc etc).
  - mpascale00 1y ago
    I disagree. You can read a book or listen to a record, watch a dvd, unlimited times, having fairly paid upfront a price for the item. A computer is general purpose and lets you check your email every day, hell even lets you create new value in the form of new software, without the manufacturer receiving a royalty. The idea of capturing reward post-receipt is feudalistic.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      The existence of products in competitive markets is not a counter example to what my point was. I recommend looking at the terms bottom up pricing and top down pricing. The former is about creating a price based off of how much it costs to do business and then adding a profit margin. The latter is creating price in line with how much value it offers customers. The existence of products using bottom up pricing doesn't mean top down pricing does not exist.

sgarland 1y ago

Given how profitable it is, I doubt it’ll be changed. That said, I very much like Codeweavers’ approach [0], which IMO is the modern equivalent to purchasing software on a physical medium: you buy it, you can re-download it as many times as you’d like, install it on as many machines as you’d like (single-user usage only), and you get 1 year of updates and support. After that, you can still keep using it indefinitely, but you don’t get updates or paid support. You get a discount if you renew before expiry. They also have a lifetime option which, so far, they’ve not indicated they’re going to change. I have no affiliation with them, I just think it’s a good product, and a good licensing / sales model. [0]: https://www.codeweavers.com/store https://www.codeweavers.com/store

mpascale00 1y ago
Profitable for sure, but I'm often half surprised by the lack of competition against subscription-based everything these days.