3 ms·

> Subscription business models I think a subscription business model is the only honest way to sell software that will require ongoing support. If you're comfo

> Subscription business models I think a subscription business model is the only honest way to sell software that will require ongoing support. If you're comfortable with a snapshot w/o updates, then by all means buy once, but I think coming to terms with the demands of ongoing support also means coming to terms with continuing to support the product in some way. That said, I wish there were more variations in the way to pay - a long term license with a high upfront fee and a low monthly, an immediate access option with a high montly and no up-front fee, etc.

sleepybrett 5y ago
why does 1password need ongoing support? Take these strings, encrypt them. Let me decrypt them using a password i specify. Let me search for them and sort them. Done.
- aeturnum 5y ago
  I mean, I don't know - I don't work at the company. But it seems internally inconsistent to me to like the product, but have disdain for the professional judgement of the people who make it. It seems like you'd be happier with a community product that has less support, but is available for free - and thankfully you have that option.
_dot__dot_ 5y ago
I don't quite see why free bug fixes/minor features + paid major upgrades model should be any different from subscription model for developers, except giving the users control over when to upgrade. Control that is essential for apps that contain critical data. BTW, I think they do have an option that you pay for 3 years upfront. At least, that was one of the options they mentioned when I complained about the lack of the option to buy a license. To me that did not seem an acceptable solution because you pay upfront and still have all the drawbacks of the subscription model such as being dependent on the trustworthiness of a quite obviously untrustworthy company. Add to that the removal of local vault option, and it becomes even less acceptable.
- aeturnum 5y ago
  The developer time it takes to do bug fixes and minor features is not free, so it seems appropriate to charge a fee for it. I know that it's very common for subscription models to coincide with forced upgrades (as this one does), but that seems like a choice on the part of the company as opposed to something inherent to the revenue model. I'd be quite happy to pay a developer to continue to maintain an older version of their software. Like you pointed out, I think a fee structure where you pay for major updates and otherwise pay a maintenance / hosting subscription fee makes the most sense. I think that you see open source projects that struggle along all of the time because their developers cannot afford to work on them enough. Not every project, but enough of them. I try to support projects like that too.

sleepybrett 5y ago

why does 1password need ongoing support? Take these strings, encrypt them. Let me decrypt them using a password i specify. Let me search for them and sort them. Done.

aeturnum 5y ago
I mean, I don't know - I don't work at the company. But it seems internally inconsistent to me to like the product, but have disdain for the professional judgement of the people who make it. It seems like you'd be happier with a community product that has less support, but is available for free - and thankfully you have that option.

_dot__dot_ 5y ago

I don't quite see why free bug fixes/minor features + paid major upgrades model should be any different from subscription model for developers, except giving the users control over when to upgrade. Control that is essential for apps that contain critical data. BTW, I think they do have an option that you pay for 3 years upfront. At least, that was one of the options they mentioned when I complained about the lack of the option to buy a license. To me that did not seem an acceptable solution because you pay upfront and still have all the drawbacks of the subscription model such as being dependent on the trustworthiness of a quite obviously untrustworthy company. Add to that the removal of local vault option, and it becomes even less acceptable.

aeturnum 5y ago
The developer time it takes to do bug fixes and minor features is not free, so it seems appropriate to charge a fee for it. I know that it's very common for subscription models to coincide with forced upgrades (as this one does), but that seems like a choice on the part of the company as opposed to something inherent to the revenue model. I'd be quite happy to pay a developer to continue to maintain an older version of their software. Like you pointed out, I think a fee structure where you pay for major updates and otherwise pay a maintenance / hosting subscription fee makes the most sense. I think that you see open source projects that struggle along all of the time because their developers cannot afford to work on them enough. Not every project, but enough of them. I try to support projects like that too.