4 ms·

How was it sustainable when we called them programs instead of the current indentured servitude system of subscriptions? Maybe programmers won’t be paid like d

How was it sustainable when we called them programs instead of the current indentured servitude system of subscriptions? Maybe programmers won’t be paid like doctors anymore, but there was a time when it was the only way software was sold and it was a more sane time and the software was of better quality as well.

benhurmarcel 7y ago
The price had two digits.
- endymi0n 7y ago
  Often times, three — without free updates.
seneca 7y ago
Software doesn't just run on the users' hardware anymore, generally. Ongoing hosting costs tend to be the argument used to justify subscriptions. In reality it's that it's wildly lucrative, but hosting costs play some part.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  I'm pretty happy running the software on my own, bought and paid for hardware.
- stiray 7y ago
  Good that you have mentioned, I have almost forgot. I will never ever pay a dime for the software, that is running on a 3rd party servers. At the moment I havent found any software that I would need (or doesnt have an self hosted alternative) and needs 3 party server interaction. There are multiple reasons for that but primary two, that are history proven are: - I dont trust you - I REALLY, REALLY DONT trust you Credentials storage? Any data storage? Yeah right, I have my own server and dont have time to reverse and check your code each update (but I did on first use). Immediately when you dont support self hosting of my data, you have lost a potential customer, regardless how "good" your application is (typically in this case, it is far from good, developer lacks the knowlidge of how to do it without some major lasigna code on server side or is predatory). All of application that I have bought are running on complete lockdown from any server (including firebase and other unneeded services) that is not mine. And countless times it was proven as a very good practice.
- x0x0 7y ago
  The focus on hosting prices is misplaced without realizing they're often dwarfed by the labor prices to keep those boxes up, working, secure, etc.
cortesoft 7y ago
A major difference is that the programs were standalone. Once packaged, the software was done and required no more work from the creators. They would either switch to making the next thing, or making the next version of the last thing (which would have to be bought again). This is no longer the business model for a vast majority of software development. Now, software is never 'done', but new features are continually added (whether needed or not) and most software requires a large server farm to provide services for the sold software (or the entire offering)... this is both a design decision, but even more so a decision that requires customers to keep paying for the same software as 'support'
- chkaloon 7y ago
  And with devices continually on the Internet, new security threats require constant updates for many apps. "back in the old days" with effectively everything air-gapped for the most part, running the same software version for years was more viable.
- kzrdude 7y ago
  > This is no longer the business model for a vast majority of software development. Now, software is never 'done', but new features are continually added (whether needed or not) Good point - the whether needed or not puts the finger right on the point. The subscription model is funding development of subpar features that aren't needed. This is an inefficiency, and ideally it should be eliminated
- hnick 7y ago
  A popular hybrid model with programs like UltraEdit and many Wordpress plugins is you pay once to own the software, get free updates and support for X amount of time, then have the option to extend or renew later if you want to. I can still email UltraEdit and get installation links for my copy dating from before 2013, and I did recently (I still enjoy using it for some specific tasks).
jacquesm 7y ago
> Maybe programmers won’t be paid like doctors anymore Quite a few doctors would sign on the spot for that.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Salary and quality of work are codependent, remember that many programmer roles would be considered engineering roles, and bad practices could lead to user damage.
masklinn 7y ago
> How was it sustainable when we called them programs instead of the current indentured servitude system of subscriptions? 1. software prices were not below coffee prices 2. you got what you bought, you could not and did not expect updates 3. updates and upgrades were not free
- tux1968 7y ago
  > 2. you got what you bought, you could not and did not expect updates Given the number of user-hostile updates that often arrive somewhere along the way, i'd like to go back to not expecting updates. Happy to pay for new versions when new features are enticing enough.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > Happy to pay for new versions when new features are enticing enough. And many devs would be glad to provide that, but the shit-heaps that are "modern" storefront don't allow for it. AFAIK neither Google's playstore nor Apple's appstore allow for upgrade pricing, if you release an update or upgrade every user gets it for free. Or you have to release a completely different piece of software, pray that it does't get rejected as a duplicate, pray that it doesn't consume a finite resource (like twitter application tokens) and can't offer "upgrade pricing" different from first-purchase pricing because you can't differentiate. This sort of pricing methods remains fairly common for computer software houses who sell their thing directly.
tzs 7y ago
> but there was a time when it was the only way software was sold and it was a more sane time and the software was of better quality as well As cortesoft already noted:> A major difference is that the programs were standalone. Once packaged, the software was done and required no more work from the creators. They would either switch to making the next thing, or making the next version of the last thing (which would have to be bought again). That is a big reason software was of higher quality. Although the developers moved on the next version or next thing, there was still support. What I was told as a developer of retail software sold on floppy or CD-ROM in stores like CompUSA, Egghead, Best Buy, and the like is that every time a customer had a problem that they could not figure out themselves in the software or by reading the manual and so ended up calling our toll-free help number, that cost us more than our profit on the sale--in fact, I was told, it would cost us more than our profit on several sales. This was at a time when only a small fraction of customers had internet access. A larger, but still small, fraction would have modems that they used with some non-internet service like CompuServe or with BBS systems. This meant that there was no cheap way to get software updates to a majority of customers--mailing them a floppy or CD-ROM would be the only way. There was also no way to get workaround instructions to the majority of customers, other than mailing them via the post office. Thus it was very important to management that when the software went out the number and severity of bugs was sufficiently low that not many people would need to call help. If the number or severity was too high, dealing with all the calls or sending everyone a new floppy or CD-ROM would probably make the product a net loss. This resulted in an emphasis on software quality throughout the company. Even if the actual functionality the product offered was stupid, we would make sure it was very good at doing that stupid thing, and that the manual was clear and complete. Even if we were working on a new product for which there were currently no competitors on the market, and we knew that another company was working on a similar product and it looked like they would get to market first, we'd not cut quality to beat them to market. Being second to market, and so not getting as big a share as we would have had we been first, was better than being first with a product that would kill us on support costs. Another consequence of most customers not having internet or other online access such as CompuServe or BBS systems is that it was important to get good reviews in magazines such as PC Magazine, Byte, Macworld, since those were the only reviews many potential customers would see. If your release went out with any noticeable bugs, they would probably get mentioned in the reviews. Even if you did bite the bullet later and send out new floppies or CD-ROMs to all your customers to fix the bug, you probably would not get a second review. People will remember the first review, and your sales will tank. I think that as a programmer I liked that era better than the one we are now in, for a few reasons. • I liked the emphasis on quality. If I wasn't happy with my code, management supported making it better even if this would take longer. • I liked that things ended. When we shipped the product, it was done. I could make a clean break and start working on our next product, which might have nothing at all to do with the prior product. • If we did decide to do another version, it had to have enough new functions and features to make people with the prior version want to buy it. That was often enough changes to justify treating it as a completely new product which I could completely re-architect if I wanted to.

benhurmarcel 7y ago

The price had two digits.

endymi0n 7y ago
Often times, three — without free updates.

seneca 7y ago

Software doesn't just run on the users' hardware anymore, generally. Ongoing hosting costs tend to be the argument used to justify subscriptions. In reality it's that it's wildly lucrative, but hosting costs play some part.

jacquesm 7y ago
I'm pretty happy running the software on my own, bought and paid for hardware.
stiray 7y ago
Good that you have mentioned, I have almost forgot. I will never ever pay a dime for the software, that is running on a 3rd party servers. At the moment I havent found any software that I would need (or doesnt have an self hosted alternative) and needs 3 party server interaction. There are multiple reasons for that but primary two, that are history proven are: - I dont trust you - I REALLY, REALLY DONT trust you Credentials storage? Any data storage? Yeah right, I have my own server and dont have time to reverse and check your code each update (but I did on first use). Immediately when you dont support self hosting of my data, you have lost a potential customer, regardless how "good" your application is (typically in this case, it is far from good, developer lacks the knowlidge of how to do it without some major lasigna code on server side or is predatory). All of application that I have bought are running on complete lockdown from any server (including firebase and other unneeded services) that is not mine. And countless times it was proven as a very good practice.
x0x0 7y ago
The focus on hosting prices is misplaced without realizing they're often dwarfed by the labor prices to keep those boxes up, working, secure, etc.

cortesoft 7y ago

A major difference is that the programs were standalone. Once packaged, the software was done and required no more work from the creators. They would either switch to making the next thing, or making the next version of the last thing (which would have to be bought again). This is no longer the business model for a vast majority of software development. Now, software is never 'done', but new features are continually added (whether needed or not) and most software requires a large server farm to provide services for the sold software (or the entire offering)... this is both a design decision, but even more so a decision that requires customers to keep paying for the same software as 'support'

chkaloon 7y ago
And with devices continually on the Internet, new security threats require constant updates for many apps. "back in the old days" with effectively everything air-gapped for the most part, running the same software version for years was more viable.
kzrdude 7y ago
> This is no longer the business model for a vast majority of software development. Now, software is never 'done', but new features are continually added (whether needed or not) Good point - the whether needed or not puts the finger right on the point. The subscription model is funding development of subpar features that aren't needed. This is an inefficiency, and ideally it should be eliminated
hnick 7y ago
A popular hybrid model with programs like UltraEdit and many Wordpress plugins is you pay once to own the software, get free updates and support for X amount of time, then have the option to extend or renew later if you want to. I can still email UltraEdit and get installation links for my copy dating from before 2013, and I did recently (I still enjoy using it for some specific tasks).

jacquesm 7y ago

> Maybe programmers won’t be paid like doctors anymore Quite a few doctors would sign on the spot for that.

soulofmischief 7y ago
Salary and quality of work are codependent, remember that many programmer roles would be considered engineering roles, and bad practices could lead to user damage.

masklinn 7y ago

> How was it sustainable when we called them programs instead of the current indentured servitude system of subscriptions? 1. software prices were not below coffee prices 2. you got what you bought, you could not and did not expect updates 3. updates and upgrades were not free

tux1968 7y ago
> 2. you got what you bought, you could not and did not expect updates Given the number of user-hostile updates that often arrive somewhere along the way, i'd like to go back to not expecting updates. Happy to pay for new versions when new features are enticing enough.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > Happy to pay for new versions when new features are enticing enough. And many devs would be glad to provide that, but the shit-heaps that are "modern" storefront don't allow for it. AFAIK neither Google's playstore nor Apple's appstore allow for upgrade pricing, if you release an update or upgrade every user gets it for free. Or you have to release a completely different piece of software, pray that it does't get rejected as a duplicate, pray that it doesn't consume a finite resource (like twitter application tokens) and can't offer "upgrade pricing" different from first-purchase pricing because you can't differentiate. This sort of pricing methods remains fairly common for computer software houses who sell their thing directly.

tzs 7y ago

> but there was a time when it was the only way software was sold and it was a more sane time and the software was of better quality as well As cortesoft already noted:> A major difference is that the programs were standalone. Once packaged, the software was done and required no more work from the creators. They would either switch to making the next thing, or making the next version of the last thing (which would have to be bought again). That is a big reason software was of higher quality. Although the developers moved on the next version or next thing, there was still support. What I was told as a developer of retail software sold on floppy or CD-ROM in stores like CompUSA, Egghead, Best Buy, and the like is that every time a customer had a problem that they could not figure out themselves in the software or by reading the manual and so ended up calling our toll-free help number, that cost us more than our profit on the sale--in fact, I was told, it would cost us more than our profit on several sales. This was at a time when only a small fraction of customers had internet access. A larger, but still small, fraction would have modems that they used with some non-internet service like CompuServe or with BBS systems. This meant that there was no cheap way to get software updates to a majority of customers--mailing them a floppy or CD-ROM would be the only way. There was also no way to get workaround instructions to the majority of customers, other than mailing them via the post office. Thus it was very important to management that when the software went out the number and severity of bugs was sufficiently low that not many people would need to call help. If the number or severity was too high, dealing with all the calls or sending everyone a new floppy or CD-ROM would probably make the product a net loss. This resulted in an emphasis on software quality throughout the company. Even if the actual functionality the product offered was stupid, we would make sure it was very good at doing that stupid thing, and that the manual was clear and complete. Even if we were working on a new product for which there were currently no competitors on the market, and we knew that another company was working on a similar product and it looked like they would get to market first, we'd not cut quality to beat them to market. Being second to market, and so not getting as big a share as we would have had we been first, was better than being first with a product that would kill us on support costs. Another consequence of most customers not having internet or other online access such as CompuServe or BBS systems is that it was important to get good reviews in magazines such as PC Magazine, Byte, Macworld, since those were the only reviews many potential customers would see. If your release went out with any noticeable bugs, they would probably get mentioned in the reviews. Even if you did bite the bullet later and send out new floppies or CD-ROMs to all your customers to fix the bug, you probably would not get a second review. People will remember the first review, and your sales will tank. I think that as a programmer I liked that era better than the one we are now in, for a few reasons. • I liked the emphasis on quality. If I wasn't happy with my code, management supported making it better even if this would take longer. • I liked that things ended. When we shipped the product, it was done. I could make a clean break and start working on our next product, which might have nothing at all to do with the prior product. • If we did decide to do another version, it had to have enough new functions and features to make people with the prior version want to buy it. That was often enough changes to justify treating it as a completely new product which I could completely re-architect if I wanted to.