3 ms·

OP here. Au contraire - I am happy to pay a bit extra for software that does its job and gets out of the way. With hardware, one could argue that can be made a

by dend 5y ago

OP here. Au contraire - I am happy to pay a bit extra for software that does its job and gets out of the way. With hardware, one could argue that can be made a part of the price for the device - if I buy a "premium" component, I prefer to have a clean user experience that does not create a hole in my network to manage RGB lights.

wilde 5y ago
Thanks for responding! I guess I was mainly reacting to your claim about the move to subscriptions. It costs $10/mo to make software these days. $0.33/mo (your stated price) isn’t tenable. I expect the added costs apply similarly for other portions of the supply chain. Apple hardware provides similar quality to what you’re asking for. It is 2-4x more expensive and that’s with the advantage of scale.
- dend 5y ago
  I think this can be taken on a case-by-case basis. With software, where I am looking is a place where I can buy a "snapshot" - the current release that time and effort was invested in, that I can compensate for. That's it. I am not asking for constant updates, as I would be perfectly content with the release I bought. That is, until it can't work for my needs, and I need to buy another version. But I do understand your point and I agree - it's not a cheap effort.
  - wilde 5y ago
    This is the perennial problem with pricing. You should pay for the value you get out of the software. At a fixed price, there’s a lot less flexibility. In this case that same software might decide to charge for 3y or 5y of value. Would you balk at paying $500-$700 for perpetual use? The subscription is more efficient in the sense that the folks getting more value pay more.
    - dend 5y ago
      If the software is worth it, absolutely - I would pay $500 and use it for years to come. Up until a couple of years ago, that was the model used by Adobe for their Creative Suite. Tools like Vegas Pro are in the same boat - it's expensive for a one-time fee, but I view it as an investment in my craft (if I really need the tool). My hypothesis (and I have no data to back this up) is that most users leverage the same functionality over and over despite the updates and new features. As a hobbyist user of photo-editing software (and Photoshop in the past), I can't recall a single update to the stack in the past five years that was groundbreaking in my day-to-day usage of the tool. That's not to say this won't be the case in the future, but when it is, I will happily pay a premium for the next version. There is, of course, the argument that subscriptions lower the bar of entry - a student can't afford $600 per tool, but they can much easier bear the $29.99/mo. My argument is less about "no subscriptions, ever" but more about "give me an option to give you money upfront and forget about updates until 5 years later."
      - wilde 5y ago
        Ok, that’s fair then!

by dend 5y ago

wilde 5y ago

Thanks for responding! I guess I was mainly reacting to your claim about the move to subscriptions. It costs $10/mo to make software these days. $0.33/mo (your stated price) isn’t tenable. I expect the added costs apply similarly for other portions of the supply chain. Apple hardware provides similar quality to what you’re asking for. It is 2-4x more expensive and that’s with the advantage of scale.

dend 5y ago
I think this can be taken on a case-by-case basis. With software, where I am looking is a place where I can buy a "snapshot" - the current release that time and effort was invested in, that I can compensate for. That's it. I am not asking for constant updates, as I would be perfectly content with the release I bought. That is, until it can't work for my needs, and I need to buy another version. But I do understand your point and I agree - it's not a cheap effort.
- wilde 5y ago
  This is the perennial problem with pricing. You should pay for the value you get out of the software. At a fixed price, there’s a lot less flexibility. In this case that same software might decide to charge for 3y or 5y of value. Would you balk at paying $500-$700 for perpetual use? The subscription is more efficient in the sense that the folks getting more value pay more.
  - dend 5y ago
    If the software is worth it, absolutely - I would pay $500 and use it for years to come. Up until a couple of years ago, that was the model used by Adobe for their Creative Suite. Tools like Vegas Pro are in the same boat - it's expensive for a one-time fee, but I view it as an investment in my craft (if I really need the tool). My hypothesis (and I have no data to back this up) is that most users leverage the same functionality over and over despite the updates and new features. As a hobbyist user of photo-editing software (and Photoshop in the past), I can't recall a single update to the stack in the past five years that was groundbreaking in my day-to-day usage of the tool. That's not to say this won't be the case in the future, but when it is, I will happily pay a premium for the next version. There is, of course, the argument that subscriptions lower the bar of entry - a student can't afford $600 per tool, but they can much easier bear the $29.99/mo. My argument is less about "no subscriptions, ever" but more about "give me an option to give you money upfront and forget about updates until 5 years later."
    - wilde 5y ago
      Ok, that’s fair then!