10 ms·

Subscription model is actually way better if you don't want to end up with feature bloat. Because you actually get money from users even if you only ever fix bu

by yoz-y 7y ago

Subscription model is actually way better if you don't want to end up with feature bloat. Because you actually get money from users even if you only ever fix bugs and improve performance. If you freeze your features you will soon arrive at a point where everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops.

Insanity 7y ago
Unless you have competitors and they offer (niche) features that you suddenly want as well.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  Depending on how small the niche is you can sacrifice a small amount of users if they switch to keep the code simpler. Also it's not like the model prevents you from adding features. But it gives you more freedom to pick the ones that make the most sense to implement because you do not need to constantly chase new users.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Once you get to the point where pretty much every new feature serves just a niche, plugins are the solution. If need one of a hundred niche features, it's great to have software that has it, and it's also really great to have softare that doesn't have the other 99 features; it's better from usability perspective if they don't get automatically added for me.
  - NowThenGoodBad 7y ago
    Just like Microsoft Excel. Unfortunately, Microsoft backpedalled between 2011 and 2016 versions (those are for Mac) and removed a significant amount of functionality. Files closed with the application no longer reopen, UI elements are gone, and, worse yet, you can't completely customize all of the possible keyboard shortcuts any more, you can't even find access to them. To my understanding, this was for 2 reasons (excuses): 1. Some OS changes Apple made* 2. To push people to subscribe to office 365 and "gain" that functionality * I paid full price for both 2011 and 2016 (and the corresponding windows office copies). 2011 still works on the most recent macOS with all of the functionality. So, claiming that Apple did something to make the feature of automatically reopening the documents you had open when you quit broken is bull. Their old version still does that on the new OS just fine (despite that little pop up claiming the software is incompatible...it still works, why not use it?) After buying MS Office with removed functionality, I will sadly not be buying office again. Nor will I be subscribing to office 365, nor will I be supporting it in any corporate ecosystem. The files from the old versions are perfectly fine and when they no longer are, Libre office and (almost embarrassingly) Google docs will have to do. I'm definitely not the only one bailing. My father has been off for many years and, as a principal engineer at a Silicon Valley medical device company he helps others see that we don't need to let Microsoft maintain a stranglehold on us. But, I was happy buying the new versions of office year after year until these most recent changes. Excel 2005 was one of their best versions. That was my subscription model: I pay full price every couple years you put out a new version and, in return, you give me a good, solid product that built off the prior one (or at least stayed damn near as useful) while providing support to that product through updates and bug fixes. Subscription services are already gaining groans from people and we don't need another subscription in our lives. But, to wrap up, back to the point: even though excel (and the other MS Office software) were incredibly versatile already, you still had the option to install the Analysis ToolPak if you needed to work with complex statistics or engineering analysis or even write your own plugins or macros for it, instead of those features overburdening the software and overwhelming the users by "covering all the use cases".
    - sjy 7y ago
      Lost functionality in Office 2016 has been driving me crazy, too. It seems that most of the problems are derived from the 2016 apps implementing app sandboxing (which Apple requires for distribution through the Mac App Store). The 2011 apps are unsandboxed, but I'm not sure how much longer it will be before Apple turns off the compatibility mode for legacy apps.
enraged_camel 7y ago
I think you are forgetting tech support. Depending on the product and the types of users you have, it can be time-consuming and quite expensive for the company. The primary reason subscription model makes sense, and why many software shops are switching to it, is because you never want to find yourself in a situation where you have to generate new sales to afford supporting the existing customer-base.
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  This was never an issue because in the old model you only provide support for one year, and sell an annual maintenance plan at 20% of original price to continue it.
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    People balked at that too, though. It was widely perceived as a "money milking" scheme.
    - jeremyjh 7y ago
      Consumers complained, sure but most businesses understand that it costs money to provide services. If a software vendor had no plan for funding maintenance that would be perceived as a supplier risk because it’s unsustainable.
la_barba 7y ago
That's a good point. I'm overall positive about subscription software, but I don't like the fact that it always seems to go hand in hand with DRM and other nonsense. I'd rather they take some modest amount per year and let me do whatever I want with the software. Its a headache to make the software work when the computer is on an isolated network and will never be connected to the internet. Office 365 I'm looking at you.. :P
- ryandrake 7y ago
  On the other hand, I’m totally against subscription software because I resent having to pay again and again for the same product just to be able to use it a month later. What ever happened to making a product, selling it once to the customer, who then gets to use it as they wish for as long as it works? Why does everything have to be a recurring revenue stream? Because you have software engineers who need something to do? I don’t want to pay your software team over and over so they can keep changing it on me over and over. Just make it once, sell it, then go make something else!
  - holy_city 7y ago
    Honestly? Because no software is free from bugs and there will always be a need for support. The difference between single sale and subscription can be life or death for a company, its products, and its support. But if you don't feel that a subscription to a service adds value, please don't buy it and voice your concern to the developers. Especially if they're a small shop. That said, subscriptions can be canceled. For example I needed Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator this month. Got to use those for a fraction of the cost I would have paid five years ago for each program and been stuck with a license. It's more flexible that way. But I understand it doesn't reflect every use case.
    - msla 7y ago
      > That said, subscriptions can be canceled. Ideally. Assuming you haven't bought into a contract, and assuming the company... you know... stops charging you once you stop using their product and "cancel" using the mechanism they provide. That second problem can be mitigated with single-use credit cards, like what privacy.com offers, but if that gets to be too common, I can imagine companies requiring you not use those as a condition of service.
holy_city 7y ago
I wholeheartedly agree, but it's still not perfect. Introducing new revenue models into old industries where people are used to "owning" their software can be dicey. A decent middle ground is permanent fallback versions. But then you still have the issues with feature creep.
nofunsir 7y ago
"everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops." That's... how it should work. You don't get to hook into their wallets for time and all eternity. everybody who wanted your <shovel> bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your <light bulb> bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your <real estate> bought it and then the revenue stops. ... and then you go do something else! That is the precise mechanism that drives the economy forward.
- Largah 7y ago
  the difference being that if your shovel breaks or is redesigned, you have to buy a new one. with software, updates and new features are expected to be free to a certain extent, so other means of monetization are necessary.
  - Falkon1313 7y ago
    Generally no. Fixes (bugfixes and security fixes) yes, changes (and removed features) no.
- lars_francke 7y ago
  I agree with your examples but I think a piece of software is different because users expect it to change over time. New Mac OS version? Users want <software> to support it. Found a bug in a library <software> uses? Users expect to get a fixed version etc. And while as a software user/buyer myself I like the idea of paying once and be done with it I kinda understand why people need recurring income if they keep on working on a piece of software even if it's just "minor" things.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    >> New Mac OS version? I have been avoiding the available OS update for my Macbook Air because I've heard it kills performance, reduces battery life, may not run one of my favorite applications, and AFAIK brings nothing that I actually want.
robocat 7y ago
SaaS means all customers get our new features and on our schedule, not theirs (note: we sell a SaaS). We would never freeze an old "version" because that would cost us too much to maintain (edit: we do freeze in short term, we don't in long term). We still add "bloat" features because we are trying to sell to new customers. On the flip side, customers do get new features that are useful to them without the price of their subscription changing. If we froze features, and only fixed bugs (and browser compatibility), customers would eventually drift away over the long term because they do need some new features.
- Falkon1313 7y ago
  >If we froze features, and only fixed bugs (and browser compatibility), customers would eventually drift away over the long term because they do need some new features. Why not sell it as an upgrade/add-on/DLC then? More money for you and less hassle and bugs for the customer to deal with.
  - robocat 7y ago
    Might be financially a good idea - perhaps we are just lazy and leaving money on table? Hard to say. But it is such a pain keeping track of who's got what features enabled, what the pricing structure is, more complex invoicing, customers are paying already etc. We would for a new major "product" but we do not for smaller features.

by yoz-y 7y ago

Insanity 7y ago

Unless you have competitors and they offer (niche) features that you suddenly want as well.

yoz-y 7y ago
Depending on how small the niche is you can sacrifice a small amount of users if they switch to keep the code simpler. Also it's not like the model prevents you from adding features. But it gives you more freedom to pick the ones that make the most sense to implement because you do not need to constantly chase new users.
PeterisP 7y ago
Once you get to the point where pretty much every new feature serves just a niche, plugins are the solution. If need one of a hundred niche features, it's great to have software that has it, and it's also really great to have softare that doesn't have the other 99 features; it's better from usability perspective if they don't get automatically added for me.
- NowThenGoodBad 7y ago
  Just like Microsoft Excel. Unfortunately, Microsoft backpedalled between 2011 and 2016 versions (those are for Mac) and removed a significant amount of functionality. Files closed with the application no longer reopen, UI elements are gone, and, worse yet, you can't completely customize all of the possible keyboard shortcuts any more, you can't even find access to them. To my understanding, this was for 2 reasons (excuses): 1. Some OS changes Apple made* 2. To push people to subscribe to office 365 and "gain" that functionality * I paid full price for both 2011 and 2016 (and the corresponding windows office copies). 2011 still works on the most recent macOS with all of the functionality. So, claiming that Apple did something to make the feature of automatically reopening the documents you had open when you quit broken is bull. Their old version still does that on the new OS just fine (despite that little pop up claiming the software is incompatible...it still works, why not use it?) After buying MS Office with removed functionality, I will sadly not be buying office again. Nor will I be subscribing to office 365, nor will I be supporting it in any corporate ecosystem. The files from the old versions are perfectly fine and when they no longer are, Libre office and (almost embarrassingly) Google docs will have to do. I'm definitely not the only one bailing. My father has been off for many years and, as a principal engineer at a Silicon Valley medical device company he helps others see that we don't need to let Microsoft maintain a stranglehold on us. But, I was happy buying the new versions of office year after year until these most recent changes. Excel 2005 was one of their best versions. That was my subscription model: I pay full price every couple years you put out a new version and, in return, you give me a good, solid product that built off the prior one (or at least stayed damn near as useful) while providing support to that product through updates and bug fixes. Subscription services are already gaining groans from people and we don't need another subscription in our lives. But, to wrap up, back to the point: even though excel (and the other MS Office software) were incredibly versatile already, you still had the option to install the Analysis ToolPak if you needed to work with complex statistics or engineering analysis or even write your own plugins or macros for it, instead of those features overburdening the software and overwhelming the users by "covering all the use cases".
  - sjy 7y ago
    Lost functionality in Office 2016 has been driving me crazy, too. It seems that most of the problems are derived from the 2016 apps implementing app sandboxing (which Apple requires for distribution through the Mac App Store). The 2011 apps are unsandboxed, but I'm not sure how much longer it will be before Apple turns off the compatibility mode for legacy apps.

enraged_camel 7y ago

I think you are forgetting tech support. Depending on the product and the types of users you have, it can be time-consuming and quite expensive for the company. The primary reason subscription model makes sense, and why many software shops are switching to it, is because you never want to find yourself in a situation where you have to generate new sales to afford supporting the existing customer-base.

jeremyjh 7y ago
This was never an issue because in the old model you only provide support for one year, and sell an annual maintenance plan at 20% of original price to continue it.
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  People balked at that too, though. It was widely perceived as a "money milking" scheme.
  - jeremyjh 7y ago
    Consumers complained, sure but most businesses understand that it costs money to provide services. If a software vendor had no plan for funding maintenance that would be perceived as a supplier risk because it’s unsustainable.

la_barba 7y ago

That's a good point. I'm overall positive about subscription software, but I don't like the fact that it always seems to go hand in hand with DRM and other nonsense. I'd rather they take some modest amount per year and let me do whatever I want with the software. Its a headache to make the software work when the computer is on an isolated network and will never be connected to the internet. Office 365 I'm looking at you.. :P

ryandrake 7y ago
On the other hand, I’m totally against subscription software because I resent having to pay again and again for the same product just to be able to use it a month later. What ever happened to making a product, selling it once to the customer, who then gets to use it as they wish for as long as it works? Why does everything have to be a recurring revenue stream? Because you have software engineers who need something to do? I don’t want to pay your software team over and over so they can keep changing it on me over and over. Just make it once, sell it, then go make something else!
- holy_city 7y ago
  Honestly? Because no software is free from bugs and there will always be a need for support. The difference between single sale and subscription can be life or death for a company, its products, and its support. But if you don't feel that a subscription to a service adds value, please don't buy it and voice your concern to the developers. Especially if they're a small shop. That said, subscriptions can be canceled. For example I needed Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator this month. Got to use those for a fraction of the cost I would have paid five years ago for each program and been stuck with a license. It's more flexible that way. But I understand it doesn't reflect every use case.
  - msla 7y ago
    > That said, subscriptions can be canceled. Ideally. Assuming you haven't bought into a contract, and assuming the company... you know... stops charging you once you stop using their product and "cancel" using the mechanism they provide. That second problem can be mitigated with single-use credit cards, like what privacy.com offers, but if that gets to be too common, I can imagine companies requiring you not use those as a condition of service.

holy_city 7y ago

I wholeheartedly agree, but it's still not perfect. Introducing new revenue models into old industries where people are used to "owning" their software can be dicey. A decent middle ground is permanent fallback versions. But then you still have the issues with feature creep.

nofunsir 7y ago

"everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops." That's... how it should work. You don't get to hook into their wallets for time and all eternity. everybody who wanted your <shovel> bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your <light bulb> bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your <real estate> bought it and then the revenue stops. ... and then you go do something else! That is the precise mechanism that drives the economy forward.

Largah 7y ago
the difference being that if your shovel breaks or is redesigned, you have to buy a new one. with software, updates and new features are expected to be free to a certain extent, so other means of monetization are necessary.
- Falkon1313 7y ago
  Generally no. Fixes (bugfixes and security fixes) yes, changes (and removed features) no.
lars_francke 7y ago
I agree with your examples but I think a piece of software is different because users expect it to change over time. New Mac OS version? Users want <software> to support it. Found a bug in a library <software> uses? Users expect to get a fixed version etc. And while as a software user/buyer myself I like the idea of paying once and be done with it I kinda understand why people need recurring income if they keep on working on a piece of software even if it's just "minor" things.
- phkahler 7y ago
  >> New Mac OS version? I have been avoiding the available OS update for my Macbook Air because I've heard it kills performance, reduces battery life, may not run one of my favorite applications, and AFAIK brings nothing that I actually want.

robocat 7y ago

SaaS means all customers get our new features and on our schedule, not theirs (note: we sell a SaaS). We would never freeze an old "version" because that would cost us too much to maintain (edit: we do freeze in short term, we don't in long term). We still add "bloat" features because we are trying to sell to new customers. On the flip side, customers do get new features that are useful to them without the price of their subscription changing. If we froze features, and only fixed bugs (and browser compatibility), customers would eventually drift away over the long term because they do need some new features.

Falkon1313 7y ago
>If we froze features, and only fixed bugs (and browser compatibility), customers would eventually drift away over the long term because they do need some new features. Why not sell it as an upgrade/add-on/DLC then? More money for you and less hassle and bugs for the customer to deal with.
- robocat 7y ago
  Might be financially a good idea - perhaps we are just lazy and leaving money on table? Hard to say. But it is such a pain keeping track of who's got what features enabled, what the pricing structure is, more complex invoicing, customers are paying already etc. We would for a new major "product" but we do not for smaller features.