5 ms·

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 imagin

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
    This is true, but I think people have forgotten just how expensive software was a generation ago. Photoshop in the pre-Cloud days was a $600+ program depending on where you got it, with upgrade pricing in the $150–200 range. Today, you can get a "Photography" Creative Cloud subscription with Photoshop and Lightroom for $120/year. I'm not in love with "everything is SaaS," but I recognize that a lot of software businesses really want recurring revenue rather than a rush of orders -- many of which are lower-priced upgrades -- when new releases come out, then a trickle until the next for-pay release (which a subset of your existing customers won't upgrade to). And, in an era where a lot of people have come to see upfront prices of $99+ for applications as outrageously high -- and worse, have been trained by app stores to expect free upgrades indefinitely -- the old model may just not be sustainable.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  Products grew and evolved perfectly fine under the old regime of perpetual licensing and paying for a new release > I for one appreciate products that evolve and improve. And I do not. Software updates are a huge pain in the ass for almost no benefit to me
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    A problem I see as an outsider is that perpetual licenses where one pays when upgrading encourages companies to stay on the older version (which may have exploitable bugs) to avoid shelling out again. It has to be added to the budget when needed. Subscriptions don’t have that problem as the company can update without paying anything new and can keep the payments in the budget as a recurring expense. Both sides have their benefits, so to say one is worse than the other seems not right. It’d be nice if there was an option on which model you chose (for example, $5k/seat for perpetual single version or $300/month/seat for subscription), but alas, that’s not available. > And I do not. Software updates are a huge pain in the ass for almost no benefit to me Ah, but there is a benefit that you just don’t see: bug and security fixes. Your boss isn’t going to be happy if your company is hacked because your IT department didn’t want to spend effort updating (assuming that’s in the budget). This obviously ignores 0-days, but there’s not much a downstream user can do there.
    - tomc1985 6y ago
      My problem is that subscriptions have crossed over into the consumer space to become a tax on whatever it is you use the software for. Take photoshop... I'm not a professional graphic artist, and I have need for PS maybe once a year at most. Depending on the importance of that need and my desire to own the software it might justify a onetime purchase. But with their subscription model it just isn't worth it. One of the things I liked about the old model was it put professional tools into the hands of amateurs if they were willing to save up their money. Now, instead, you pay a yearly tax that is not insignificant for no real gain
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
- Kranar 6y ago
  The fact that numerous software projects with different pricing or licensing models exist that have reached critical mass and evolve and improve over time proves your point is factually incorrect.

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
  This is true, but I think people have forgotten just how expensive software was a generation ago. Photoshop in the pre-Cloud days was a $600+ program depending on where you got it, with upgrade pricing in the $150–200 range. Today, you can get a "Photography" Creative Cloud subscription with Photoshop and Lightroom for $120/year. I'm not in love with "everything is SaaS," but I recognize that a lot of software businesses really want recurring revenue rather than a rush of orders -- many of which are lower-priced upgrades -- when new releases come out, then a trickle until the next for-pay release (which a subset of your existing customers won't upgrade to). And, in an era where a lot of people have come to see upfront prices of $99+ for applications as outrageously high -- and worse, have been trained by app stores to expect free upgrades indefinitely -- the old model may just not be sustainable.
tomc1985 6y ago
Products grew and evolved perfectly fine under the old regime of perpetual licensing and paying for a new release > I for one appreciate products that evolve and improve. And I do not. Software updates are a huge pain in the ass for almost no benefit to me
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  A problem I see as an outsider is that perpetual licenses where one pays when upgrading encourages companies to stay on the older version (which may have exploitable bugs) to avoid shelling out again. It has to be added to the budget when needed. Subscriptions don’t have that problem as the company can update without paying anything new and can keep the payments in the budget as a recurring expense. Both sides have their benefits, so to say one is worse than the other seems not right. It’d be nice if there was an option on which model you chose (for example, $5k/seat for perpetual single version or $300/month/seat for subscription), but alas, that’s not available. > And I do not. Software updates are a huge pain in the ass for almost no benefit to me Ah, but there is a benefit that you just don’t see: bug and security fixes. Your boss isn’t going to be happy if your company is hacked because your IT department didn’t want to spend effort updating (assuming that’s in the budget). This obviously ignores 0-days, but there’s not much a downstream user can do there.
  - tomc1985 6y ago
    My problem is that subscriptions have crossed over into the consumer space to become a tax on whatever it is you use the software for. Take photoshop... I'm not a professional graphic artist, and I have need for PS maybe once a year at most. Depending on the importance of that need and my desire to own the software it might justify a onetime purchase. But with their subscription model it just isn't worth it. One of the things I liked about the old model was it put professional tools into the hands of amateurs if they were willing to save up their money. Now, instead, you pay a yearly tax that is not insignificant for no real gain
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
Kranar 6y ago
The fact that numerous software projects with different pricing or licensing models exist that have reached critical mass and evolve and improve over time proves your point is factually incorrect.