4 ms·

I think that this distinction is largely becoming irrelevant in the cloud era. Most software is sold / licensed on a term basis these days, and honestly the ind

I think that this distinction is largely becoming irrelevant in the cloud era. Most software is sold / licensed on a term basis these days, and honestly the industry is healthier as a result. App stores are really the only remaining vestige of "buy once, use forever" -- and I'd guess that the EU isn't interested in going after it thanks to the small dollar amount and huge number of companies who benefit. Software was never truly a "product" in the same way that physical goods are -- it was always a service thanks to the maintenance and continued investment required. It may have been better for the consumer in the short term to "buy" software, but a subscription model allows for more predictable cash flows to the developer of the software (which keeps software vendors in business -- and their software supported).

woofyman 9y ago
As a consumer, I will never purchase subscription software. If a new version has a feature I need or because of OS upgrade, I'll purchase the new version or an upgrade if offered.
- mark-r 9y ago
  The physical goods model for software is much more consumer friendly. You don't need every single upgrade, you can choose how much to spend on an ongoing basis. If an "upgrade" is less suitable for you than the original, you can skip it or look for a substitute. It's scary to contemplate a world where the software you rely on every day can change out from under you without your control or even knowledge. See the animosity aimed at Windows 10 updates.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    We're in that world, to a large degree. By default, phone apps auto-update. OSes auto-update. Websites arbitrarily change behavior, as suits their owners. All but the last can be disabled (mostly), but it's still a pain.
taeric 9y ago
The industry is healthier as a result? I question that rather strong claim. Consider as a counter point, I can still pull up cartridge based games on my old consoles and they work. Rather well, actually. Now, that does speak only to the "health" of the software I run. It also ignores the implications of this world we are in where everything is fully connected to the internet. To your point of healthier for the developers. Do you have numbers to back that up? Certainly gave companies a more reliable cash flow that are licensing software. But... conversely, this gave consumers a burden in the form of constant cash flow out.
- tunap 9y ago
  To add to your counter-point, the consumer also gets rent-seeking companies locking the consumer into a proprietary system to extort you to pay more, more often(eg:Intuit). That is, if the provider doesn't shut down the platform b/c it isn't profitable enough(eg:Cubby), new investors ruin the product or they go out of business for myriad reasons.
njarboe 9y ago
It would be interesting if food was sold this way. Instead of an upfront purchase of atoms and molecules, you license their use and pay a monthly fee. It would be a bit hard to tell which exact atoms came from each food consumed with current tech, but one could do estimates of the expected half-lives of various atoms and molecules in the human body and have people agree to pay according those rates. This would definitely allow for more predictable cash flows to the farmer and the rest of the food processing and delivery system.
- desiderantes 9y ago
  Until you reach a point where most of your atoms come from them, and you are their property now. Great! Why do people here propose the most obtuse and shitty dystopian scenarios for everything?
  - njarboe 9y ago
    Sorry, forgot about Poe's Law[1] for a moment there. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    Because they didn't propose anything, they outlined an interesting satirical scenario.
- ada1981 9y ago
  Bechtel had a neat scheme where they bought all of the water rights for 40 years in Bolivia for $2.5B -- with a contract that guaranteed them a minimum of 15% return each year. Citizens revolted when it was learned they may need to obtain a license from the government to collect rainwater from their roofs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War
  - wcummings 9y ago
    The James Bond writers are really getting lazy.
Spooky23 9y ago
s/industry/some software vendors/ The loss of perpetual right to use is a devastating and nasty impact on the industry to customers. I've been involved in big hairy nasty disputes from massive vendors of cloud services -- they have you over a barrel in the way the IBM did in the bad old days.
_jal 9y ago
Healthy for whom? Not for people who don't want software to change out from under them. This includes a large number of people and cuts across just about all industries. Not for people who want portability. "Cloud" services have a horrid habit of holding your data hostage. There's usually lip-service to portability, but for any moderately complex application, there's nothing available to load the data in to. Not for people who are not connected 24/7. Sure, this number shrinks all the time, but there will always be times when we're offline. Not for people who consider their data sensitive. Windows 10 should probably be considered malware by anyone who has a nondisclosure agreement with teeth and works on sensitive documents. It is absolutely better for businesses creating commercial software. Revenue is so much easier to handle.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Physical goods need maintenance and continued investment sometimes too, not seeing a differentiation here between software and other goods. Could you perhaps expand on hire you perceive then to be different enough to warrant additional protections?

woofyman 9y ago

As a consumer, I will never purchase subscription software. If a new version has a feature I need or because of OS upgrade, I'll purchase the new version or an upgrade if offered.

mark-r 9y ago
The physical goods model for software is much more consumer friendly. You don't need every single upgrade, you can choose how much to spend on an ongoing basis. If an "upgrade" is less suitable for you than the original, you can skip it or look for a substitute. It's scary to contemplate a world where the software you rely on every day can change out from under you without your control or even knowledge. See the animosity aimed at Windows 10 updates.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  We're in that world, to a large degree. By default, phone apps auto-update. OSes auto-update. Websites arbitrarily change behavior, as suits their owners. All but the last can be disabled (mostly), but it's still a pain.

taeric 9y ago

The industry is healthier as a result? I question that rather strong claim. Consider as a counter point, I can still pull up cartridge based games on my old consoles and they work. Rather well, actually. Now, that does speak only to the "health" of the software I run. It also ignores the implications of this world we are in where everything is fully connected to the internet. To your point of healthier for the developers. Do you have numbers to back that up? Certainly gave companies a more reliable cash flow that are licensing software. But... conversely, this gave consumers a burden in the form of constant cash flow out.

tunap 9y ago
To add to your counter-point, the consumer also gets rent-seeking companies locking the consumer into a proprietary system to extort you to pay more, more often(eg:Intuit). That is, if the provider doesn't shut down the platform b/c it isn't profitable enough(eg:Cubby), new investors ruin the product or they go out of business for myriad reasons.

njarboe 9y ago

It would be interesting if food was sold this way. Instead of an upfront purchase of atoms and molecules, you license their use and pay a monthly fee. It would be a bit hard to tell which exact atoms came from each food consumed with current tech, but one could do estimates of the expected half-lives of various atoms and molecules in the human body and have people agree to pay according those rates. This would definitely allow for more predictable cash flows to the farmer and the rest of the food processing and delivery system.

desiderantes 9y ago
Until you reach a point where most of your atoms come from them, and you are their property now. Great! Why do people here propose the most obtuse and shitty dystopian scenarios for everything?
- njarboe 9y ago
  Sorry, forgot about Poe's Law[1] for a moment there. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
- khedoros1 9y ago
  Because they didn't propose anything, they outlined an interesting satirical scenario.
ada1981 9y ago
Bechtel had a neat scheme where they bought all of the water rights for 40 years in Bolivia for $2.5B -- with a contract that guaranteed them a minimum of 15% return each year. Citizens revolted when it was learned they may need to obtain a license from the government to collect rainwater from their roofs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War
- wcummings 9y ago
  The James Bond writers are really getting lazy.

Spooky23 9y ago

s/industry/some software vendors/ The loss of perpetual right to use is a devastating and nasty impact on the industry to customers. I've been involved in big hairy nasty disputes from massive vendors of cloud services -- they have you over a barrel in the way the IBM did in the bad old days.

_jal 9y ago

Healthy for whom? Not for people who don't want software to change out from under them. This includes a large number of people and cuts across just about all industries. Not for people who want portability. "Cloud" services have a horrid habit of holding your data hostage. There's usually lip-service to portability, but for any moderately complex application, there's nothing available to load the data in to. Not for people who are not connected 24/7. Sure, this number shrinks all the time, but there will always be times when we're offline. Not for people who consider their data sensitive. Windows 10 should probably be considered malware by anyone who has a nondisclosure agreement with teeth and works on sensitive documents. It is absolutely better for businesses creating commercial software. Revenue is so much easier to handle.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Physical goods need maintenance and continued investment sometimes too, not seeing a differentiation here between software and other goods. Could you perhaps expand on hire you perceive then to be different enough to warrant additional protections?