6 ms·

As a counter point, I hope that by paying a subscription, I get a continuous stream of small patches with bug fixes, security updates, and design improvements.

As a counter point, I hope that by paying a subscription, I get a continuous stream of small patches with bug fixes, security updates, and design improvements. I like the subscription model, especially if it has a free tier, because passionate customers can support the developer team and subsidize less passionate users

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> As a counter point, I hope that by paying a subscription, I get a continuous stream of small patches with bug fixes, security updates, and design improvements. But you do realize that the subscription model is exactly the thing that removes the incentive to do that, right?
- pspeter3 9y ago
  Can you provide your reasoning? I assume that the subscriptions continue to fund software developers working on the product.
  - ColanR 9y ago
    I think parent's point is about how the company is drawing in cashflow. If the customer owns perpetually a copy of the software, the only reason they'll buy a new copy is if the new one is substantially better than the old: hence, the only way the company makes cash next year is if they've been improving their product. With the subscription model, the company is still going to make that income regardless if they have a new product. As long as no other competitor has developed a competing product, there's no reason to innovate. (and there's lots of ways to deal with competitors besides innovating)
    - toyg 9y ago
      On the other hand, this removes a big incentive for "featuritis". A developer can sit back and only add features that really matter to the product or fix minor but annoying bugs, rather than pushing unnecessary flashy changes dictated by a sales cycle. I'm not particularly happy about moving to what is effectively a rent society, but I think this is one of the few silver linings of the subscription model.
      - TimJYoung 9y ago
        Spot-on. It's almost impossible to keep mature products going without a subscription model. Mature products eventually only need: a) support and b) compatibility/stability/performance updates. But, these types of updates can be very expensive to develop and are very difficult to market as a new release (works with XXXX now isn't a very compelling proposition for upgrades). It's kind of the same problem that open source software faces after it matures. Nobody wants to just sit and do support/incremental changes on old software, at least not for free.
      - diggum 9y ago
        I am employed by one of the companies discussed, and while I was on the fence about subscriptions originally, I've come to change my opinion. While not ideal for a subset of users who might use only one or two applications, it is less expensive for the majority of users. It's also lowered the barrier of entry significantly, which has invited a lot of new users, reduced piracy, and encouraged use and exploration of applications they might have avoided in the past. From the development side of the business, the more frequent release cycle has allowed the product teams to be much more responsive. Under the old model, with major updates every 18-24 months, I might receive a feature request which is implemented in a few weeks, but which the user doesn't have access to for a year or more. This was hugely frustrating as we want to make features and products our customers want to use, and to have it ready and waiting for so long was not a great experience for anyone. Now, we can have that feature in users hands in weeks or months. I don't understand this idea that there will be reduced incentive to release updates under a subscription or membership model. If anything, frequency and responsiveness feels more important than before, and I don't know of anyone here who feels differently. edit: I was more on the fence about subscriptions than unsupportive. It was a drastic change that required either gradual transition or a rip-off-the-bandaid approach.
        pspeter3 9y ago
        This is what I thought would be the natural outcome. I'm glad to hear it's working out for you!
      - BuleBule 9y ago
    - specialist 9y ago
      I have a different view. Perhaps because I used to publish my own shareware. Today's current Patreon model is pretty close to how shareware used to work (for me). Buying a license today is investing in future development. I wouldn't pay to use software that's not actively being maintained. Nor would I expect my customers to either.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        Which is exactly not the case that's being discussed here? What is discussed here is the case where you lose the right to use the software if you don't continue to pay, completely independently from what that money is used for, which is why it removes one important incentive to improve the software. And if your skillset and your data is locked up in some software, it's questionable whether you really would stop paying, and thus stop using the software that you depend on.
        specialist 9y ago
        GP wrote: "...only reason they'll buy a new copy is if the new one is substantially better than the old..." The obvious, intuitive cause & effect isn't always the case. I bought software to encourage future development, vs wait for new release then decide to upgrade. Push vs pull.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        1. Why you bought it is irrelevant to the question of what their incentives are. 2. That people are willing to effectively pay in advance for a future release without any guarantees what they will get for it is irrelevant to the question of whether you have the lever to shut off that cash flow if they continue to not deliver any updates of value to you, while still using the existing version. In other words: You are simply missing the point.
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      There is a reason to improve the product because if they don't they will lose subscribers. What does change is there isn't the incentive to pile in dubious features to justify charging for an upgrade every other year.
- cwyers 9y ago
  > But you do realize that the subscription model is exactly the thing that removes the incentive to do that, right? Can you name a single case where this has happened with subscription software, though? The big named examples in the article (as far as I could stand to read it, at least) are Adobe Creative Cloud and Microsoft Office 365. Here's the What's New page for Photoshop CC 2017, along with links to the changes in various bugfix releases that have occurred since release: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new.html https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new.html You can find the release notes for the past few releases of Photoshop: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/photoshop-releasenotes.html https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/photoshop-releasenotes.htm... They aren't sitting on their laurels. And Office hasn't stagnated, either. If the subscription model removes the incentive to do that, why are they still doing that? You get new features in Office 365 sooner than you do on shrinkwrap Office releases. Adobe products have been subscription only for over four years now. The incentive seems to be in place.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Microsoft took away your previous version rights and broke Access for many older databases. They launched an O365 server side Access Service that was shut down. There are other examples as well. Do you own Visio or Project and use Citrix? You can't use it unless you convert to a subscription. Most of the office apps changes have been around supporting other office components. Stuff like federated login and not crashing. :)
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    >> But you do realize that the subscription model is exactly the thing that removes the incentive to do that, right? > Can you name a single case where this has happened with subscription software, though? Every single one of them. It's just a matter of logic that that incentive is removed. There might be other incentives that still keep them innovating or whatever (like, say, competition, if it's reasonably possible to migrate away), but that one just logically isn't.
    - cwyers 9y ago
      You said the incentive to do so, not an incentive to do so. If, as it turns out, there are many different competing incentives, the easiest way to find out what affect switching to subscriptions has on the addition of features to software is to look at software that has switched to subscription. If you do look at it, your concern has little to no practical impact; subscription software gets new features all the time.
Dylan16807 9y ago
> a continuous stream of small patches with bug fixes, security updates, and design improvements That doesn't require a subscription. Plenty of companies offer a permanent purchase that comes with a year of updates or all minor-version updates or similar. The option is there to treat it similarly to a subscription, but importantly you never have to pay and what you already own can never be changed or taken away.
- brynedwards 9y ago
  One I know is Bitwig who recently changed their licensing model so you get 12 months updates with your perpetual license and can pay to continue receiving updates after 12 months[1]. [1] https://www.bitwig.com/en/17/new-license-model.html https://www.bitwig.com/en/17/new-license-model.html
  - pspeter3 9y ago
    That seems like a good hybrid model
    - toyg 9y ago
      It's the old JetBrains model.
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    Reaper gives you years of updates for your $60.
- TimJYoung 9y ago
  That's how we do it with our products (purchases include a subscription). A subscription consists of: - A year of support on our forums (real company-provided support, not just peer-provided). - All minor releases and bug-fix builds within the year. - After the subscription has expired, you still keep everything that you purchased forever, including being able to download anything you own at any time (we keep track of all of that for you). We do have some "catches" to prevent free-riders at the expense of customers that maintain subscriptions, notably that you can only renew a subscription at the normal price within 2 years of your last renewal. After that, we start to ratchet up the renewal costs until, at the 5-year mark, you'll need to (effectively) purchase a new license. Also, we offer inexpensive direct phone/email support through a separate "support session" method that is not tied to your subscription. So, even after a subscription expires, you still have direct support options. The key is that any arrangement be fair and beneficial to both parties. In our case, we get a steady, predictable stream of revenue, and the customers get support, enhancements, and bug fixes quicker and at less cost.
rcthompson 9y ago
We're not talking about subscribing to a service or subscribing to updates. We're talking about the "keep paying us or you lose access to the software" kind of subscription.
- pspeter3 9y ago
  Yeah, that's an important distinction. I don't like that model.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> As a counter point, I hope that by paying a subscription, I get a continuous stream of small patches with bug fixes, security updates, and design improvements. But you do realize that the subscription model is exactly the thing that removes the incentive to do that, right?

pspeter3 9y ago
Can you provide your reasoning? I assume that the subscriptions continue to fund software developers working on the product.
- ColanR 9y ago
  I think parent's point is about how the company is drawing in cashflow. If the customer owns perpetually a copy of the software, the only reason they'll buy a new copy is if the new one is substantially better than the old: hence, the only way the company makes cash next year is if they've been improving their product. With the subscription model, the company is still going to make that income regardless if they have a new product. As long as no other competitor has developed a competing product, there's no reason to innovate. (and there's lots of ways to deal with competitors besides innovating)
  - toyg 9y ago
    On the other hand, this removes a big incentive for "featuritis". A developer can sit back and only add features that really matter to the product or fix minor but annoying bugs, rather than pushing unnecessary flashy changes dictated by a sales cycle. I'm not particularly happy about moving to what is effectively a rent society, but I think this is one of the few silver linings of the subscription model.
    - TimJYoung 9y ago
      Spot-on. It's almost impossible to keep mature products going without a subscription model. Mature products eventually only need: a) support and b) compatibility/stability/performance updates. But, these types of updates can be very expensive to develop and are very difficult to market as a new release (works with XXXX now isn't a very compelling proposition for upgrades). It's kind of the same problem that open source software faces after it matures. Nobody wants to just sit and do support/incremental changes on old software, at least not for free.
    - diggum 9y ago
      I am employed by one of the companies discussed, and while I was on the fence about subscriptions originally, I've come to change my opinion. While not ideal for a subset of users who might use only one or two applications, it is less expensive for the majority of users. It's also lowered the barrier of entry significantly, which has invited a lot of new users, reduced piracy, and encouraged use and exploration of applications they might have avoided in the past. From the development side of the business, the more frequent release cycle has allowed the product teams to be much more responsive. Under the old model, with major updates every 18-24 months, I might receive a feature request which is implemented in a few weeks, but which the user doesn't have access to for a year or more. This was hugely frustrating as we want to make features and products our customers want to use, and to have it ready and waiting for so long was not a great experience for anyone. Now, we can have that feature in users hands in weeks or months. I don't understand this idea that there will be reduced incentive to release updates under a subscription or membership model. If anything, frequency and responsiveness feels more important than before, and I don't know of anyone here who feels differently. edit: I was more on the fence about subscriptions than unsupportive. It was a drastic change that required either gradual transition or a rip-off-the-bandaid approach.
      - pspeter3 9y ago
        This is what I thought would be the natural outcome. I'm glad to hear it's working out for you!
    - BuleBule 9y ago
  - specialist 9y ago
    I have a different view. Perhaps because I used to publish my own shareware. Today's current Patreon model is pretty close to how shareware used to work (for me). Buying a license today is investing in future development. I wouldn't pay to use software that's not actively being maintained. Nor would I expect my customers to either.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      Which is exactly not the case that's being discussed here? What is discussed here is the case where you lose the right to use the software if you don't continue to pay, completely independently from what that money is used for, which is why it removes one important incentive to improve the software. And if your skillset and your data is locked up in some software, it's questionable whether you really would stop paying, and thus stop using the software that you depend on.
      - specialist 9y ago
        GP wrote: "...only reason they'll buy a new copy is if the new one is substantially better than the old..." The obvious, intuitive cause & effect isn't always the case. I bought software to encourage future development, vs wait for new release then decide to upgrade. Push vs pull.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        1. Why you bought it is irrelevant to the question of what their incentives are. 2. That people are willing to effectively pay in advance for a future release without any guarantees what they will get for it is irrelevant to the question of whether you have the lever to shut off that cash flow if they continue to not deliver any updates of value to you, while still using the existing version. In other words: You are simply missing the point.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    There is a reason to improve the product because if they don't they will lose subscribers. What does change is there isn't the incentive to pile in dubious features to justify charging for an upgrade every other year.
cwyers 9y ago
> But you do realize that the subscription model is exactly the thing that removes the incentive to do that, right? Can you name a single case where this has happened with subscription software, though? The big named examples in the article (as far as I could stand to read it, at least) are Adobe Creative Cloud and Microsoft Office 365. Here's the What's New page for Photoshop CC 2017, along with links to the changes in various bugfix releases that have occurred since release: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new.html https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new.html You can find the release notes for the past few releases of Photoshop: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/photoshop-releasenotes.html https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/photoshop-releasenotes.htm... They aren't sitting on their laurels. And Office hasn't stagnated, either. If the subscription model removes the incentive to do that, why are they still doing that? You get new features in Office 365 sooner than you do on shrinkwrap Office releases. Adobe products have been subscription only for over four years now. The incentive seems to be in place.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Microsoft took away your previous version rights and broke Access for many older databases. They launched an O365 server side Access Service that was shut down. There are other examples as well. Do you own Visio or Project and use Citrix? You can't use it unless you convert to a subscription. Most of the office apps changes have been around supporting other office components. Stuff like federated login and not crashing. :)
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  >> But you do realize that the subscription model is exactly the thing that removes the incentive to do that, right? > Can you name a single case where this has happened with subscription software, though? Every single one of them. It's just a matter of logic that that incentive is removed. There might be other incentives that still keep them innovating or whatever (like, say, competition, if it's reasonably possible to migrate away), but that one just logically isn't.
  - cwyers 9y ago
    You said the incentive to do so, not an incentive to do so. If, as it turns out, there are many different competing incentives, the easiest way to find out what affect switching to subscriptions has on the addition of features to software is to look at software that has switched to subscription. If you do look at it, your concern has little to no practical impact; subscription software gets new features all the time.

Dylan16807 9y ago

> a continuous stream of small patches with bug fixes, security updates, and design improvements That doesn't require a subscription. Plenty of companies offer a permanent purchase that comes with a year of updates or all minor-version updates or similar. The option is there to treat it similarly to a subscription, but importantly you never have to pay and what you already own can never be changed or taken away.

brynedwards 9y ago
One I know is Bitwig who recently changed their licensing model so you get 12 months updates with your perpetual license and can pay to continue receiving updates after 12 months[1]. [1] https://www.bitwig.com/en/17/new-license-model.html https://www.bitwig.com/en/17/new-license-model.html
- pspeter3 9y ago
  That seems like a good hybrid model
  - toyg 9y ago
    It's the old JetBrains model.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  Reaper gives you years of updates for your $60.
TimJYoung 9y ago
That's how we do it with our products (purchases include a subscription). A subscription consists of: - A year of support on our forums (real company-provided support, not just peer-provided). - All minor releases and bug-fix builds within the year. - After the subscription has expired, you still keep everything that you purchased forever, including being able to download anything you own at any time (we keep track of all of that for you). We do have some "catches" to prevent free-riders at the expense of customers that maintain subscriptions, notably that you can only renew a subscription at the normal price within 2 years of your last renewal. After that, we start to ratchet up the renewal costs until, at the 5-year mark, you'll need to (effectively) purchase a new license. Also, we offer inexpensive direct phone/email support through a separate "support session" method that is not tied to your subscription. So, even after a subscription expires, you still have direct support options. The key is that any arrangement be fair and beneficial to both parties. In our case, we get a steady, predictable stream of revenue, and the customers get support, enhancements, and bug fixes quicker and at less cost.

rcthompson 9y ago

We're not talking about subscribing to a service or subscribing to updates. We're talking about the "keep paying us or you lose access to the software" kind of subscription.

pspeter3 9y ago
Yeah, that's an important distinction. I don't like that model.