3 ms·

If you think that you will attract enough new customers that you will make more money under a subscription model than a traditional paid model, there is no reas

If you think that you will attract enough new customers that you will make more money under a subscription model than a traditional paid model, there is no reason to keep the existing users happy -- if they leave, they have already paid you all they were ever willing to pay, so you aren't missing out on any money from them. (If they aren't willing to pay for a subscription, they probably wouldn't have paid a one-time fee for the next version of the product either. These are the kind of people who buy once and don't upgrade.) Even if they switch to a competitor's product, it's not like you lost any money you would have gotten from them.

nodamage 10y ago
You make a good point, although I don't think I would necessarily agree that just because a user isn't willing to pay a subscription, they also wouldn't be willing to pay for an upgrade. Presumably, a new version of a product has new features that act as an incentive to pay the upgrade cost. A subscription, which is recurring and indefinite, does not, and is therefore a much harder pill to swallow.
mcgrath_sh 10y ago
I disagree with your statement about paying users who will not pay for a subscription. I am one of them. I hate Utility Apps as a Service for a litany of reasons. I am, however, eager and willing to pay as much as or more than a subscription price to own software that I use. I don't want to open my notes app, text editor, TextExpander, or password manager one day and find out it is not working. I want to know that if my system never changes, I can continue to use the current version of software without worrying about it not working because I didn't pay my rent. This is the analogy I use: if I am drilling holes every weekend for three months, I am going to buy a drill, not rent one evey Saturday and pay as much in rent as I would to own it. And when I own that drill, I expect it to work for at minimum 12-18 months (warranty/devleopment) and at that point, if something goes wrong (massive OS changes) or there is a fancier drill, I will buy it if that is worth it to me. The peace of mind of owning software is more important to me than a reduced cost / continual upgrade of renting it. I will always look for software that sells me a license over one that doesn't.

nodamage 10y ago

You make a good point, although I don't think I would necessarily agree that just because a user isn't willing to pay a subscription, they also wouldn't be willing to pay for an upgrade. Presumably, a new version of a product has new features that act as an incentive to pay the upgrade cost. A subscription, which is recurring and indefinite, does not, and is therefore a much harder pill to swallow.

mcgrath_sh 10y ago

I disagree with your statement about paying users who will not pay for a subscription. I am one of them. I hate Utility Apps as a Service for a litany of reasons. I am, however, eager and willing to pay as much as or more than a subscription price to own software that I use. I don't want to open my notes app, text editor, TextExpander, or password manager one day and find out it is not working. I want to know that if my system never changes, I can continue to use the current version of software without worrying about it not working because I didn't pay my rent. This is the analogy I use: if I am drilling holes every weekend for three months, I am going to buy a drill, not rent one evey Saturday and pay as much in rent as I would to own it. And when I own that drill, I expect it to work for at minimum 12-18 months (warranty/devleopment) and at that point, if something goes wrong (massive OS changes) or there is a fancier drill, I will buy it if that is worth it to me. The peace of mind of owning software is more important to me than a reduced cost / continual upgrade of renting it. I will always look for software that sells me a license over one that doesn't.