6 ms·

"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

"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.
  - oarsinsync 7y ago
    > brings nothing that I actually want You might not want security updates, but you probably need them, and probably should have them.
  - yoz-y 7y ago
    YMMV but to me Mojave works way better than High Sierra on my 2009 MBP
- Jedd 7y ago
  > I agree with your examples but I think a piece of software is different because users expect it to change over time. A delightful assertion that is the precise opposite of TFA's entire point.
- Falkon1313 7y ago
  >users expect it to change over time No, they expect to have the opportunity to upgrade to newer versions which may be different if they want those differences. They don't expect the one they bought, learned to use, and have grown proficient with to suddenly be completely different one day for no good reason. Consider buying a truck because you haul stuff around a lot. You don't expect to just come out to your driveway one morning and find a fuel-efficient minicar there instead because someone at the car company decided that people like fuel-efficient vehicles, so they would steal back all the trucks they made and replace them. However, maybe you used to haul a lot of cargo but you don't anymore so you've been thinking of replacing the truck and a fuel-efficient car would interest you, but you want that to be your choice.
  - yoz-y 7y ago
    Your example is not addressing the point the parent made. Users definitely expect free updates to new OS versions with all the bells and whistles this version supports. They also definitely expect bugfixes. Nobody mentioned changing design here. I can guarantee you that inboxes of all iOS developers who have not implemented dark mode will fill up the first day iOS 13 is released to public. Heck, people expect your app to work on the first beta and will complain if it does not.
    - russdpale 7y ago
      I think both of you guys are right. I am continually surprised though to see some outright anger though. A good example is Microsoft Office. People who were used to pre ribbon get downright angry when talking about the ribbon. Its this weird delicate balance of improving the UI but not changing it too much. I tell people all the time UI is the hardest job in the world, an entire team of PhD's cannot get it right most of the time. Its simple an impossible task to consider the 'work flow' of every user- it is just beyond the scope of human intelligence I think. All you can do is create a good UI that works for a majority of people, and try to manage it from there.
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
The light bulb example is ironic, because the life of light bulbs was artificially shortened to ensure people had to keep buying them regularly.
- nofunsir 7y ago
  Was wondering who would catch that ;)
- mrob 7y ago
  Or more charitably, the life of light bulbs was artificially shortened to avoid a race to the bottom with long-lasting but inefficient bulbs. Hot-running incandescent bulbs emit more of their radiation in the visible spectrum instead of infrared, but they burn out quicker. Colder-running light bulbs last longer, and that's obvious to consumers, but power bills aren't itemized so they're less likely to notice the wasted energy. The actions of the Phoebus cartel were arguable in the interests of consumers.
ken 7y ago
Except that revenue stream ends before the "fix bugs and improve performance" step. People buy based on screenshots/demos/trials/reviews, and those don't expose the deep bugs you run into 3 months later when doing real work. Shovels break, light bulbs burn out. Then you go buy another one, and there's a good chance it's better than the earlier one. The manufacturer keeps working to improve the quality, and people keep paying them for this. "Buy a software license once for all time" is not analogous to this.
- nofunsir 7y ago
  "Buy a software" is vastly different from "Buy a software license" Problem being, <shovel> makers are now prohibiting you from owning your <shovel>. From fixing your <shovel>. From changing your <shovel> so you don't need to buy <super shovel>. Now with forced updates, you're now literally prohibited from keeping the shovel you have and like!
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    You are using <brackets> as though you haven't noticed the physical product companies are all racing to lock up their products in rent-seeking license agreements.
    - mitchdoogle 7y ago
      I think he's using it to show the ludicrousness of the system software has become. I haven't heard of any subscription shovels, have you?
      - pyhtel 7y ago
        Perhaps not shovels, rental cars/excavators and such aren't too different from a subscription model
- jtbayly 7y ago
  > Shovels break, light bulbs burn out. Then you go buy another one, and there's a good chance it's better than the earlier one. Not in my experience. Almost always the new ones are improved only in one respect: profitability. Generally this means they have used cheaper components, lowered the cost a bit, and made an inferior product. Ok. End of tangent.
WA 7y ago
This is a bit naive. Software and especially apps these days are more a stream of updates (like Netflix) than a v1.0 you buy once. Updates are expected from users (and app stores). Example: A customer bought your app on iOS 9. It worked perfectly fine. You wrote it once, because you couldn’t expect more revenue from existing customers. It stopped working on iOS 11, because 32-bit support was ended on Apple’s side. Of course, it’s not Apple who gets the blame, it’s you, because your app doesn’t work anymore. But it is supposed to work, because your customer paid good money for it ($4.99). Back in the day, sure, if you bought a software that worked on MS-DOS only, it’s your fault when you got Windows and it didn’t run your software. No expectations, no hard feelings. But iOS is iOS. It’s the thing running average Joe’s smartphones. Software bought for iOS should work on iOS. Forever. Your examples all describe products with an expected expiration date. Software used to have expiration dates. But not anymore. The expectation changed.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  What's wrong with charging for upgrades? I buy a computer with Mac 9 and some programs, and when I want Mac 10. I buy upgrades.
  - Silhouette 7y ago
    What's wrong with charging for upgrades? I hear the big downside is that you have to offer enough improvement over the previous version for your customer to be willing to pay for them. That's just crazy talk!
  - WA 7y ago
    Is that true? I bet you wouldn’t – or most people wouldn’t. The OS for them is an intangible thing. Your app/software is what gets the blame if it doesn’t work in a new environment. No way average Joe pays again for the same product he bought before, just because he now as Mac 10 now instead of 9.
- Silhouette 7y ago
  Software bought for iOS should work on iOS. Forever. What you're glossing over here is that for literally decades, that was a pretty good baseline assumption, because we actually valued backward compatibility. The lengths that Microsoft went to in order to maintain that compatibility in the first several major releases of Windows are legendary. The lengths that Linux developers still go to are also remarkable. It's only in the crazy new world of X-as-a-service and not even controlling the OS on your own devices that anyone thinks deliberately breaking stuff every few years to force the upgrade treadmill is a good thing. And the people who think that are largely the ones who also see you as nothing but a data point in a revenue maximisation model, not the actual users. Ask yourself this: Have you ever met anyone who isn't a software developer who told you joyously about how much they appreciate the endless stream of updates that everything they buy now gets? I haven't. But I have lost track of how many friends and family have bemoaned things being changed that they didn't want, older devices that seemed to be working perfectly well but then got broken by some software update, some service they depend on being broken or switched off, some content on a service they pay for being removed or blocked unless they pay more, etc. This is not progress. This is a failure of regulation, the triumph of capitalist free markets in consolidating so much power in so few places that competition is no longer an effective protector of the customer's best interests.
wolco 7y ago
Only open source allows for this by default.
ouid 7y ago
how am I supposed to make a living if I can't charge rent?
Spivak 7y ago
Sure but then the well dries up for software maintenance and you end up with a slowly degrading product as the environment in which it runs slowly shifts around it. Then you have to secure a new vendor when it eventually breaks completely which is basically the same as buying yearly versions. Or you pay a subscription/maintenance contract so that the software keeps being maintained. The problem with software maintenance is that it isn't a 'full company' job so you have devs sitting around who might as well add features for large clients since it makes them happy and you keep getting that sweet ARR.
cloudego 7y ago
> That’s... how it should work. I think the absence of this theory in reality is proof that it is not a successful business practice for software development. If you believe that this model accurately translates to software then I challenge you to start your own software shop.

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.
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  > brings nothing that I actually want You might not want security updates, but you probably need them, and probably should have them.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  YMMV but to me Mojave works way better than High Sierra on my 2009 MBP
Jedd 7y ago
> I agree with your examples but I think a piece of software is different because users expect it to change over time. A delightful assertion that is the precise opposite of TFA's entire point.
Falkon1313 7y ago
>users expect it to change over time No, they expect to have the opportunity to upgrade to newer versions which may be different if they want those differences. They don't expect the one they bought, learned to use, and have grown proficient with to suddenly be completely different one day for no good reason. Consider buying a truck because you haul stuff around a lot. You don't expect to just come out to your driveway one morning and find a fuel-efficient minicar there instead because someone at the car company decided that people like fuel-efficient vehicles, so they would steal back all the trucks they made and replace them. However, maybe you used to haul a lot of cargo but you don't anymore so you've been thinking of replacing the truck and a fuel-efficient car would interest you, but you want that to be your choice.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  Your example is not addressing the point the parent made. Users definitely expect free updates to new OS versions with all the bells and whistles this version supports. They also definitely expect bugfixes. Nobody mentioned changing design here. I can guarantee you that inboxes of all iOS developers who have not implemented dark mode will fill up the first day iOS 13 is released to public. Heck, people expect your app to work on the first beta and will complain if it does not.
  - russdpale 7y ago
    I think both of you guys are right. I am continually surprised though to see some outright anger though. A good example is Microsoft Office. People who were used to pre ribbon get downright angry when talking about the ribbon. Its this weird delicate balance of improving the UI but not changing it too much. I tell people all the time UI is the hardest job in the world, an entire team of PhD's cannot get it right most of the time. Its simple an impossible task to consider the 'work flow' of every user- it is just beyond the scope of human intelligence I think. All you can do is create a good UI that works for a majority of people, and try to manage it from there.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

The light bulb example is ironic, because the life of light bulbs was artificially shortened to ensure people had to keep buying them regularly.

nofunsir 7y ago
Was wondering who would catch that ;)
mrob 7y ago
Or more charitably, the life of light bulbs was artificially shortened to avoid a race to the bottom with long-lasting but inefficient bulbs. Hot-running incandescent bulbs emit more of their radiation in the visible spectrum instead of infrared, but they burn out quicker. Colder-running light bulbs last longer, and that's obvious to consumers, but power bills aren't itemized so they're less likely to notice the wasted energy. The actions of the Phoebus cartel were arguable in the interests of consumers.

ken 7y ago

Except that revenue stream ends before the "fix bugs and improve performance" step. People buy based on screenshots/demos/trials/reviews, and those don't expose the deep bugs you run into 3 months later when doing real work. Shovels break, light bulbs burn out. Then you go buy another one, and there's a good chance it's better than the earlier one. The manufacturer keeps working to improve the quality, and people keep paying them for this. "Buy a software license once for all time" is not analogous to this.

nofunsir 7y ago
"Buy a software" is vastly different from "Buy a software license" Problem being, <shovel> makers are now prohibiting you from owning your <shovel>. From fixing your <shovel>. From changing your <shovel> so you don't need to buy <super shovel>. Now with forced updates, you're now literally prohibited from keeping the shovel you have and like!
- lonelappde 7y ago
  You are using <brackets> as though you haven't noticed the physical product companies are all racing to lock up their products in rent-seeking license agreements.
  - mitchdoogle 7y ago
    I think he's using it to show the ludicrousness of the system software has become. I haven't heard of any subscription shovels, have you?
    - pyhtel 7y ago
      Perhaps not shovels, rental cars/excavators and such aren't too different from a subscription model
jtbayly 7y ago
> Shovels break, light bulbs burn out. Then you go buy another one, and there's a good chance it's better than the earlier one. Not in my experience. Almost always the new ones are improved only in one respect: profitability. Generally this means they have used cheaper components, lowered the cost a bit, and made an inferior product. Ok. End of tangent.

WA 7y ago

This is a bit naive. Software and especially apps these days are more a stream of updates (like Netflix) than a v1.0 you buy once. Updates are expected from users (and app stores). Example: A customer bought your app on iOS 9. It worked perfectly fine. You wrote it once, because you couldn’t expect more revenue from existing customers. It stopped working on iOS 11, because 32-bit support was ended on Apple’s side. Of course, it’s not Apple who gets the blame, it’s you, because your app doesn’t work anymore. But it is supposed to work, because your customer paid good money for it ($4.99). Back in the day, sure, if you bought a software that worked on MS-DOS only, it’s your fault when you got Windows and it didn’t run your software. No expectations, no hard feelings. But iOS is iOS. It’s the thing running average Joe’s smartphones. Software bought for iOS should work on iOS. Forever. Your examples all describe products with an expected expiration date. Software used to have expiration dates. But not anymore. The expectation changed.

lonelappde 7y ago
What's wrong with charging for upgrades? I buy a computer with Mac 9 and some programs, and when I want Mac 10. I buy upgrades.
- Silhouette 7y ago
  What's wrong with charging for upgrades? I hear the big downside is that you have to offer enough improvement over the previous version for your customer to be willing to pay for them. That's just crazy talk!
- WA 7y ago
  Is that true? I bet you wouldn’t – or most people wouldn’t. The OS for them is an intangible thing. Your app/software is what gets the blame if it doesn’t work in a new environment. No way average Joe pays again for the same product he bought before, just because he now as Mac 10 now instead of 9.
Silhouette 7y ago
Software bought for iOS should work on iOS. Forever. What you're glossing over here is that for literally decades, that was a pretty good baseline assumption, because we actually valued backward compatibility. The lengths that Microsoft went to in order to maintain that compatibility in the first several major releases of Windows are legendary. The lengths that Linux developers still go to are also remarkable. It's only in the crazy new world of X-as-a-service and not even controlling the OS on your own devices that anyone thinks deliberately breaking stuff every few years to force the upgrade treadmill is a good thing. And the people who think that are largely the ones who also see you as nothing but a data point in a revenue maximisation model, not the actual users. Ask yourself this: Have you ever met anyone who isn't a software developer who told you joyously about how much they appreciate the endless stream of updates that everything they buy now gets? I haven't. But I have lost track of how many friends and family have bemoaned things being changed that they didn't want, older devices that seemed to be working perfectly well but then got broken by some software update, some service they depend on being broken or switched off, some content on a service they pay for being removed or blocked unless they pay more, etc. This is not progress. This is a failure of regulation, the triumph of capitalist free markets in consolidating so much power in so few places that competition is no longer an effective protector of the customer's best interests.

wolco 7y ago

Only open source allows for this by default.

ouid 7y ago

how am I supposed to make a living if I can't charge rent?

Spivak 7y ago

Sure but then the well dries up for software maintenance and you end up with a slowly degrading product as the environment in which it runs slowly shifts around it. Then you have to secure a new vendor when it eventually breaks completely which is basically the same as buying yearly versions. Or you pay a subscription/maintenance contract so that the software keeps being maintained. The problem with software maintenance is that it isn't a 'full company' job so you have devs sitting around who might as well add features for large clients since it makes them happy and you keep getting that sweet ARR.

cloudego 7y ago

> That’s... how it should work. I think the absence of this theory in reality is proof that it is not a successful business practice for software development. If you believe that this model accurately translates to software then I challenge you to start your own software shop.