4 ms·
Completely agree here. I think subscribtions are bad for customers, AND THE DEVELOPERS too. Basically companies cut down on R&D instead of pushing on R&D to gai
by buserror 6y ago
Completely agree here. I think subscribtions are bad for customers, AND THE DEVELOPERS too. Basically companies cut down on R&D instead of pushing on R&D to gain new upgrade and customers fees.
I bought GraphicConverter [1] a zillion years ago, and I just upgraded to their v11, and so I paid them probably more than I've ever paid any other software -- BUT, they always come up with a list of improvement 5 pages long, and I've been using that stuff on/off for 20+ years.
I have no problems pushing money their way, I know where that money is going ultimately. It certainly doesn't go in shareholder or marketing drone's pocket.
[1]: https://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/ https://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/
- api 6y agoThis is driven by the shift toward valuing companies entirely on recurrent revenue. I've been told that non-recurrent revenue is meaningless and is often ignored. Its just the latest business fad.
- vikramkr 6y agoIts not a fad. Recurring revenue has always been worth than non recurring because valuations are forward looking and recurring revenue is lower risk. Look at smartphones. Just because someone bought a smartphone last year doesnt mean they'll buy one this year. That sale last year does not matter as much for your current valuation as if you sold a subscription