8 ms·

If I buy a frying pan and open up a restaurant with it I don't have to keep paying the frying pan company so long as I use my pan to create meals. Subscriptions

If I buy a frying pan and open up a restaurant with it I don't have to keep paying the frying pan company so long as I use my pan to create meals. Subscriptions for software libraries and components weird me out much more than subscriptions for services and end-products (with recurring costs for the service providers) do.

chrisseaton 6y ago
A frying pan is owned property. Software is copyright literature under licence.
- FpUser 6y ago
  Let the authors enjoy reading their own creation. I'll pass.
- academia_hack 6y ago
  Fair point. I'm personally not convinced that distinction is intrinsically meaningful rather than just legally and commercially convenient - especially in the case of libraries or programming languages. Qt is valueless as literature absent independent creative art that uses it to build a program - like screws in a piece of furniture. Charging people to use the component is fine by me, but making their own creative work contingent on third party approval that can be modified or revoked at any time seems unreasonable/immoral even if it's permitted by law.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  You are conflating the IP of a company with the product people buy.
mjburgess 6y ago
Subscriptions are much safer pricing models. You want apps, software etc. to be sold by subscription. Why? Most businesses are not MS/etc. which have resilient multiple income streams. Many single-app companies either go under, or stop selling that app and so no longer update or support it. A subscription model ensures that the developer always has a reliable app-specific income stream to justify investment & support.
- ReactiveJelly 6y ago
  > You want apps, software etc. to be sold by subscription. I want options. Don't tell me what I want.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    There's a difference between "telling you what you want", and the sense here. In this case it just means, "it's in your interest"; as in, "you want to see this!". In any case, "options" sounds good, but it is precisely this short-term economic logic I am claiming many misperceive as being in their interest. There are many instances of apps (, libraries, etc.) simply disappearing and being frozen in old versions because of no revenue stream against them. You may "want" something quite different 2yr after you've invested a massive amount in using Qt, only for there to be no future versions and your app becomes uncompetitive with others which are using increasingly modern libraries.
    - krelian 6y ago
      It's not in my interest if it costs me more and makes future planning more difficult. The software subscription business is essentially a huge price hike masked by paying in installments. >simply disappearing and being frozen in old versions because of no revenue stream against them. It means that the new features in version X were not good enough to entice new buys or upgrades. Subscription model is great - for the software companies. It's not a good model for consumers. The current subscription model will end up being just like Fifa or Madden games, the same thing every year with minor changes because consumers are locked-in and have no alternative.
- freedomben 6y ago
  A subscription model also flips ownership. You're only ever renting and the owner can take it back at any time (often at their discretion).
  - DerDangDerDang 6y ago
    Jetbrain's model is a good middle ground - you get perpetual access to versions released while your sub was active.
eggy 6y ago
But does that frying pan evolve new features or fixes while you have it and use it in your restaurant? Do you make requests to the manufacturer to make the handle bigger/smaller on the frying pan you own and use? Aren't there recurring costs in providing incremental updates to the software or support. Analogy sometimes seem perfect until you actually dissect them.
- academia_hack 6y ago
  I feel like this is trivially resolved by selling a subscription to those additional services (e.g. for product updates or support agreements). I'm just imagining a scenario where I build something with a subscription library and then 5 years down the line they get acquired by some private equity firm and increase the subscription cost by a factor of ten. Now I'm faced with a choice of either paying license ransom or losing the ability to use all of my own original software and creative effort.
  - flarg 6y ago
    Your approach doesn't allow the vendor to reach the critical mass required to keep a product updated and evolving. I for one appreciate products that evolve and improve.
    - toyg 6y ago
      Something like Qt or Photoshop does not need to “reach critical mass” - they actually did already do that while using a simpler licensing model. Which proves the “everything is SaaS” model is not necessary, but rather another way to extract more money from customers.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > rather another way to extract more money from customers This is just cynical!
      - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
dontspeak 6y ago
Subscriptions are a perpetual source of revenue. They take your money for as long you use your product. There is nothing wrong with that.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not a hug turnoff to potential customers. I'll pass and stick with other alternatives. I'd be happy to pay a large sum for the traditional "buy it, get free updates for a while, pay again for new updates after x months" but this "we own your software and you will pay forever", no thanks.
tomc1985 6y ago
As it should. Our industry seems to have normalized rent-seeking as status quo

chrisseaton 6y ago

A frying pan is owned property. Software is copyright literature under licence.

FpUser 6y ago
Let the authors enjoy reading their own creation. I'll pass.
academia_hack 6y ago
Fair point. I'm personally not convinced that distinction is intrinsically meaningful rather than just legally and commercially convenient - especially in the case of libraries or programming languages. Qt is valueless as literature absent independent creative art that uses it to build a program - like screws in a piece of furniture. Charging people to use the component is fine by me, but making their own creative work contingent on third party approval that can be modified or revoked at any time seems unreasonable/immoral even if it's permitted by law.
CyberDildonics 6y ago
You are conflating the IP of a company with the product people buy.

mjburgess 6y ago

Subscriptions are much safer pricing models. You want apps, software etc. to be sold by subscription. Why? Most businesses are not MS/etc. which have resilient multiple income streams. Many single-app companies either go under, or stop selling that app and so no longer update or support it. A subscription model ensures that the developer always has a reliable app-specific income stream to justify investment & support.

ReactiveJelly 6y ago
> You want apps, software etc. to be sold by subscription. I want options. Don't tell me what I want.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  There's a difference between "telling you what you want", and the sense here. In this case it just means, "it's in your interest"; as in, "you want to see this!". In any case, "options" sounds good, but it is precisely this short-term economic logic I am claiming many misperceive as being in their interest. There are many instances of apps (, libraries, etc.) simply disappearing and being frozen in old versions because of no revenue stream against them. You may "want" something quite different 2yr after you've invested a massive amount in using Qt, only for there to be no future versions and your app becomes uncompetitive with others which are using increasingly modern libraries.
  - krelian 6y ago
    It's not in my interest if it costs me more and makes future planning more difficult. The software subscription business is essentially a huge price hike masked by paying in installments. >simply disappearing and being frozen in old versions because of no revenue stream against them. It means that the new features in version X were not good enough to entice new buys or upgrades. Subscription model is great - for the software companies. It's not a good model for consumers. The current subscription model will end up being just like Fifa or Madden games, the same thing every year with minor changes because consumers are locked-in and have no alternative.
freedomben 6y ago
A subscription model also flips ownership. You're only ever renting and the owner can take it back at any time (often at their discretion).
- DerDangDerDang 6y ago
  Jetbrain's model is a good middle ground - you get perpetual access to versions released while your sub was active.

eggy 6y ago

But does that frying pan evolve new features or fixes while you have it and use it in your restaurant? Do you make requests to the manufacturer to make the handle bigger/smaller on the frying pan you own and use? Aren't there recurring costs in providing incremental updates to the software or support. Analogy sometimes seem perfect until you actually dissect them.

academia_hack 6y ago
I feel like this is trivially resolved by selling a subscription to those additional services (e.g. for product updates or support agreements). I'm just imagining a scenario where I build something with a subscription library and then 5 years down the line they get acquired by some private equity firm and increase the subscription cost by a factor of ten. Now I'm faced with a choice of either paying license ransom or losing the ability to use all of my own original software and creative effort.
- flarg 6y ago
  Your approach doesn't allow the vendor to reach the critical mass required to keep a product updated and evolving. I for one appreciate products that evolve and improve.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Something like Qt or Photoshop does not need to “reach critical mass” - they actually did already do that while using a simpler licensing model. Which proves the “everything is SaaS” model is not necessary, but rather another way to extract more money from customers.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > rather another way to extract more money from customers This is just cynical!
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago

dontspeak 6y ago

Subscriptions are a perpetual source of revenue. They take your money for as long you use your product. There is nothing wrong with that.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not a hug turnoff to potential customers. I'll pass and stick with other alternatives. I'd be happy to pay a large sum for the traditional "buy it, get free updates for a while, pay again for new updates after x months" but this "we own your software and you will pay forever", no thanks.

tomc1985 6y ago

As it should. Our industry seems to have normalized rent-seeking as status quo