53 ms·

This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. Given that de

This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. Given that developers need to be paid, and resources cost money, there needs to be a way to rectify that gap between the consumer and maintainer. At one point we did so by paying for an initial version of software, and then paying for updates. Now that we don’t do that, but someone still needs a revenue stream to pay for the costs of maintaining and evolving software, the subscription model has emerged. It’s really not that complicated. Where it gets hostile is when you see a subscription model for something where the subscription doesn’t yield any evidence of effort from the provider. For example, a subscription to software that never sees updates nor has infrastructure costs. That’s just a money grab. What confuses me is seeing this kind of question on the same forum where people often gripe about not being paid the 6 digit salary they expect to produce the software we use. How do you achieve super cheap products made by people making super high pay? Money doesn’t just materialize out of thin air to make that work. PS: my comment comes off as advocating for the subscription model. I personally hate it with a passion: I’d rather pay for upgrades/updates to code, and pay for resources metered by my usage. My comment should be interpreted as understanding where the model comes from, not necessarily liking it.

southerntofu 5y ago
But you're now getting the worst of both worlds. It was not uncommon back in the day you could buy a copy of the software which was bundled with the source code. Now you have to pay and you don't have the source code. You're just trapped into an ecosystem you have no control over. I of course understand your point that software developers need to pay rent, but i'm interested in exploring other possibilities, such as non-profits gathering donations to pay for development/UX (like framasoft does). Now, the same problem applies to all kinds of workers, from bakers to carpenters. If we take a look at the wider picture, why would anyone have to pay for rent and food? Wouldn't we all be better off if we did what we loved and shared unappreciated tasks more equally so that money doesn't get involved? It seems like we have a "these people are not getting paid enough to pay for basic survival while doing their critical job" discussion every other week.
- porcoda 5y ago
  Seriously? Since when could you buy COTS and expect to get the code too? I don’t remember a source archive accompanying the pre-subscription Adobe, Microsoft, or any other major piece of software that is now subscription-ware. That’s pure fantasy.
  - joshuaissac 5y ago
    > Since when could you buy COTS and expect to get the code too? Since the 1950s and 1960s. IBM, for example, provided source code for their products until 1983.[1] The full Apple II source code was included in the Apple II Reference Manual;[2] similarly for the Atari 400/800 Technical Reference Notes.[3] 1. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hSBrPSYgjI4C&redir_esc=y https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hSBrPSYgjI4C&redir_esc=y (page 59) 2. https://archive.org/details/applerefjan78/page/n78/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/applerefjan78/page/n78/mode/2up 3. https://archive.org/details/CO16555AtariHomeComputerTechnicalReferenceNotes1982/page/n259/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/CO16555AtariHomeComputerTechnica...
    - broeng 5y ago
      But back then, you were rarely paying for the software directly, you were paying for hardware.
    - ndiddy 5y ago
      If anyone is curious what happened in 1983, that’s the same year that Apple Computer Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. set the precedent that binary data is covered by copyright (before this case, only source code was covered).
      - doctor_eval 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Franklin_Computer_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Fran....
  - ponow 5y ago
Macha 5y ago
> or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. To take IntelliJ as an example, I can't think of an improvement since 2018 that I really would pay for. Largely enabling that is why they moved to the subscription process because people like me would use IntelliJ 18 for five or so years then update for OS support or whatever. €100/yr is way more than I used to pay for intelliJ, €240/yr is way more than I used to pay for Photoshop, etc. because SaaS conversions generally involved splitting the old upfront price as if customers were on a 2 year upgrade cycle rather than 5. As for security updates, these feel like general hygiene, e.g. if someone's selling a physical electronic product here they need to keep it from manufacturer defects for two years. If my headphones have a bug where they catch fire the manufacturer needs to eat the cost and recall and fix/replace/refund them. Even if it does wipe out their margin from the upfront €100 cost. Similarly if commercial software lets someone own my computer with log message, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect recent software to be fixed.
- jsmith99 5y ago
  At least Microsoft are still making personal office subscriptions cheaper than buying office was. 5 users, each with several devices and their own terabyte of OneDrive, is £60 a year at many retailers. I assume they will jack up the price later.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    > Microsoft are still making personal office subscriptions cheaper than buying office was. Nah you are missing the forest for the trees. Office at the moment is a gateway drug for Microsoft to get you on their cloud services. Office is not an end product anymore, it is a hook to capture market into their cloud services. They could sell office at a loss and still make money from all the Corporate/government contracts they got hooked on Azure.
  - ericd 5y ago
    Eh I still chose to buy, I usually use a copy of office for 5-10 years, so it’s still vastly cheaper to buy.
- 5y ago
beowulfey 5y ago
I would still gladly pay for updates—nobody expected to get updates for free, we always did it that way before. My impression is that the AppStore model, with the updates provided for free (for bug fixes, etc) is what began that shift to subscriptions. Before the App Store, it wasn’t easy to update software, so it was straightforward to lock updates behind paid upgrades.
- chii 5y ago
  > nobody expected to get updates for free if there's a security vulnerability, i'm sure you'd expect the update to be free.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    Let's say feature updates make sense to pay for, bug fixes don't.
  - bosie 5y ago
    Why though?
    - Kbelicius 5y ago
      Because If I get a faulty vacuum cleaner I expect to be able to exchange it for a working one for free.
      - chii 5y ago
        and yet if a lock could be picked, you don't get to exchange it for another one that couldn't be! Analogies breakdown when compared too carefully. I think software sellers is doing a courtesy when they provide security updates for free. They are not legally obligated to do it. The users are entitled to switch to a competitor however - by not having their data held hostage (which, i think modern laws don't properly address).
        Kbelicius 5y ago
fleddr 5y ago
Or...updates nobody asked for. Quite a few casual users might be perfectly happy with Office 2003, or Adobe PS6, as anything after that they don't need. And not just that, they may not want the UI to be revamped every 2 months. The option to just have stable, working software is increasingly taken away. Not to mention the anti competitive nature of these two parties. They can just bundle an additional app in their subscription at not additional cost, and this way drive a competitor out of business.
- ponow 5y ago
  There is a serious amount of diversity on the app stores, though. It's not as if you must use Photoshop, with zero alternatives.
- pards 5y ago
  Like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29983959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29983959 Forced updates that remove or disable features people use.
- can16358p 5y ago
  Reminds me of XD versus Sketch. Adobe created and added XD (Sketch competitor) and put it into its CC. Sketch's still doing great but I honestly don't know how long it will be the case as XD becomes more mature.
- hunter-gatherer 5y ago
  Your point needs more attention IMO. Most updates for most software don't add usability or convenience for the end user. The way conversational rhetoric with my family and friends seems to have transitioned from "wow, these computers are cool! This will really help with x" to complete frustration.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Jonathan Blow posted something a while back I thought was interesting: type "frustrating" into Google image search. Notice anything about the results? https://www.google.com/search?q=frustrating&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=frustrating&tbm=isch
coldtea 5y ago
>This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. Blame the victim? We din't get any impression, as we don't set the prices. The companies set those prices. For example Adobe customers never got or set any impression that "software should be free/low price". They paid 100s to 1000s of dollars for each update or package respectively, and they still got the mandatory subscription (and were some of the first users to be hit with one). >How do you achieve super cheap products made by people making super high pay? Money doesn’t just materialize out of thin air to make that work. We don't want "super cheap products", we want reasonably priced products we own after we buy.
- Hnrobert42 5y ago
  This is not blaming the victim as there are no victims. OP’s is wrong that SaaS is rent sending. Software should not be free (in cost), yet always receive new features and updates. Indeed, the alternative is the ad-tech surveillance state.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    That's a strawman. Who exactly demanded "free in cost" plus "always receive new features and updates"? If the software companies (in mobile in particular) had a race to the bottom, it's on them - and on those (hobbyists etc) that undercutted them (though, if hobbyists can undercut your prices, is your product really worth that much, or could it just as well be replaced with a hobbyist-made app?). Users have since forever paid top dollar for shrink wrapped and then downloaded software like MS Office or Abobe Creative Suite and co, that now is nonetheless "subscription based".
    - Hnrobert42 5y ago
      Well if this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. You raise the statesman that I said people claim software should be both free and maintained indefinitely. I did no such thing. I merely asserted that it should not be.
    - 5y ago
cycomanic 5y ago
>This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. When and how did that happen? SAAS has been the wet dream of the big software houses for a long time, it was just not really acceptable for people for quite a while. It's also sounds like this is about poor software developers making a living, but the reality is that software developers are amongst the highest paid professions and software companies are ruling the world and typically have the highest profits. In fact I would argue this really started to take over when investors realised that they could get insane ROI from very little investments for software companies and started to expect these kind of returns. The other thing that is driving this push is that the FANGS want to commoditize everything except for "owning" large amount of data, because that's their value add and everything else is just a cost centre for them.
irutirw222 5y ago
The problem I have with this post, is that it's assuming erroneously the "eternal development" mindset. Once a software has reached maturity, beaides (very rare) security fixes there is not much that needs to be done to it. Is anyone seeing LaTeX receiving feature updates all the time? Or grep or vim in need of continuous updates? No! And MSO, which was mentioned here multiple times, also has reached maturity decades ago. So the "dev needs to be payed" argument is wrong. Correct is: "while the software is not yet mature enough, dev needs to be payed". The problem with predatory subscription is that they usually kick in for mature software, when there is justification any more for paying fictitious work (perhaps that's why MS change the UI every few years, because hey, new UI lurea gullible customera while also making us look as if we actually do some programming here).
- aceazzameen 5y ago
  This is spot on. Adobe went subscription once their software was more than mature. Now that it's SaaS they're using paid subscribers as beta testers of features. Every once in a while something good comes of it. But then there's features no one asked for which introduce new bugs.
bambax 5y ago
> Given that developers need to be paid, and resources cost money This sounds true, but isn't. Some software grow new features and should sell new versions to users who want those features. But many applications continue to be rented while they reached peak features a long time ago. Office 97 was fine. Office 2003 was more than fine. You buy it once, you should not need to buy it again, or "rent" it, for no benefit at all. Same for Windows NT / 7. Every Windows version since 7 is worse than the previous one! Developers need to be paid only if they build something users want. Many times, the opposite seems to be the case: they build things users would really prefer not to have, yet are difficult to avoid.
- yoz-y 5y ago
  Upgrade pricing leads to feature bloat. Sure you could stop at say office 2003 features and then only update it (for free) when you need to fix bugs and compatibility issues with new systems. But that's still work! So your only chance is to abandon the software and reap the insults coming from clients who upgraded to a new Windows installation and can no longer run your software. If there was some realistic ways to bundle software in a fashion that it will continue to run forever even if environment changes, then sure–but your software better not be networked. (This is also where docker and the likes come into play).
HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
> subscription to software that never sees updates nor has infrastructure costs. That’s just a money grab There is one case I can think of where this makes sense from both the provider and consumer side: niche software that has a high development cost and a small market. In this case, the one-time acquisition cost might be too high for many customers, so moving to a subscription model allows them to use something they couldn't otherwise afford. Of course, that's not to say that updates shouldn't be expected.
voisin 5y ago
> How do you achieve super cheap products made by people making super high pay? Money doesn’t just materialize out of thin air to make that work. The marginal cost of another sale approaches zero. So if you make a popular enough product, you can sell many units rather than relying on rent seeking from your existing user base by forcing them into a SaaS subscription. Yes, the onus is now on the company to make good products that people want, and to continue to innovate such that people want to pay for the next upgrade. It’s easier to rent seek.
waspight 5y ago
It would be rather hard to sell one time software today and then sell an update once a year. Why? Because most software is in the cloud or has a great dependence on at least a backend in the cloud. I think it is more difficult (and dumb, from a security/quality perspective) to have multiple versions of the backend, with different patches and features applied depending on version bought.
AlexandrB 5y ago
> This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. This didn't happen by accident. Apple still refuses to add a paid version upgrades feature to the App Store. And by providing software like Numbers/Pages at a loss (for free) they normalized a zero or near zero cost of software in their ecosystem. At this point I'm pretty sure this is an intentional strategy of "Commoditizing their Complement"[1] on Apple's part. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  I don’t think I read it at the time, but Joel’s explanation of what was going to happen to Sun was prophetic, and also explained some of the craziness of Java that I’ve never been able to work out. I also agree with you about Apples’s position re upgrades, which - until now - I found quite baffling. I guess that the subscription model is intended by Apple to create both a lower barrier to entry (cheaper in the short term) which reduces the entry cost for complements, and long term recurring revenue which potentially creates a lock-in effect - quitting the ecosystem means losing access to the investment in apps on the platform. It’s win-win from Apple’s perspective. On the other hand I have always argued that when you write an app for iOS, you’re creating an accessory for their devices, and so you do so on Apple’s terms. (That’s fine IMO, as long as you understand that this is what you’re doing).
stonecharioteer 5y ago
I'd be okay to pay for a specific version of a product and LTS for 5 years. Do what Sublime Text does. Let me live with an older version and I'll happily upgrade if you give me features I'm interested in. Subscription models suck because yes it takes development time to come up with fixes and new features but sometimes I don't want your new features. I just want the old thing.
e-neko 5y ago
> How do you achieve super cheap products made by people making super high pay? By economy of scale. If you have 50,000 paying users, $10 each, that should cover either 5 man-years of average software development, or 2 man-years of one senior/principal level developer. Most products in question have users in the millions, paying 10 to 100 times as much. Do the math.
Atlas667 5y ago
I think your comment is the most sensible because it tries to understand it. The bad part about these models is that they reflect the power of stakeholders in a company, not so much the worker/programmers. It reflects a mode of production keen on generating capital, not the interests of the workers on getting their salary, whatever many figures it may have. The finger must be pointed at stakeholders doing what they do best; finding ways to generate capital. There is no animosity generated between work done and one paying for it at a market value, but there is between work and capital generation.
lenocinor 5y ago
I appreciate this reply. I often see nerds on the internet decry things without understanding the needs or motivations of people not like them, especially on topics that really bother nerds. Thanks for pushing hard to do that personally. It’s inspiring me to try to do it more too.
omnomynous 5y ago
>Money doesn’t just materialize out of thin air to make that work. Except when money does materialize out of thin air with fractional reserve banking. That's not for us, though. Obviously, we all know that burnin'-money for us tech folks grows on VC trees these days.

southerntofu 5y ago

But you're now getting the worst of both worlds. It was not uncommon back in the day you could buy a copy of the software which was bundled with the source code. Now you have to pay and you don't have the source code. You're just trapped into an ecosystem you have no control over. I of course understand your point that software developers need to pay rent, but i'm interested in exploring other possibilities, such as non-profits gathering donations to pay for development/UX (like framasoft does). Now, the same problem applies to all kinds of workers, from bakers to carpenters. If we take a look at the wider picture, why would anyone have to pay for rent and food? Wouldn't we all be better off if we did what we loved and shared unappreciated tasks more equally so that money doesn't get involved? It seems like we have a "these people are not getting paid enough to pay for basic survival while doing their critical job" discussion every other week.

porcoda 5y ago
Seriously? Since when could you buy COTS and expect to get the code too? I don’t remember a source archive accompanying the pre-subscription Adobe, Microsoft, or any other major piece of software that is now subscription-ware. That’s pure fantasy.
- joshuaissac 5y ago
  > Since when could you buy COTS and expect to get the code too? Since the 1950s and 1960s. IBM, for example, provided source code for their products until 1983.[1] The full Apple II source code was included in the Apple II Reference Manual;[2] similarly for the Atari 400/800 Technical Reference Notes.[3] 1. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hSBrPSYgjI4C&redir_esc=y https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hSBrPSYgjI4C&redir_esc=y (page 59) 2. https://archive.org/details/applerefjan78/page/n78/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/applerefjan78/page/n78/mode/2up 3. https://archive.org/details/CO16555AtariHomeComputerTechnicalReferenceNotes1982/page/n259/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/CO16555AtariHomeComputerTechnica...
  - broeng 5y ago
    But back then, you were rarely paying for the software directly, you were paying for hardware.
  - ndiddy 5y ago
    If anyone is curious what happened in 1983, that’s the same year that Apple Computer Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. set the precedent that binary data is covered by copyright (before this case, only source code was covered).
    - doctor_eval 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Franklin_Computer_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Fran....
- ponow 5y ago

Macha 5y ago

> or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. To take IntelliJ as an example, I can't think of an improvement since 2018 that I really would pay for. Largely enabling that is why they moved to the subscription process because people like me would use IntelliJ 18 for five or so years then update for OS support or whatever. €100/yr is way more than I used to pay for intelliJ, €240/yr is way more than I used to pay for Photoshop, etc. because SaaS conversions generally involved splitting the old upfront price as if customers were on a 2 year upgrade cycle rather than 5. As for security updates, these feel like general hygiene, e.g. if someone's selling a physical electronic product here they need to keep it from manufacturer defects for two years. If my headphones have a bug where they catch fire the manufacturer needs to eat the cost and recall and fix/replace/refund them. Even if it does wipe out their margin from the upfront €100 cost. Similarly if commercial software lets someone own my computer with log message, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect recent software to be fixed.

jsmith99 5y ago
At least Microsoft are still making personal office subscriptions cheaper than buying office was. 5 users, each with several devices and their own terabyte of OneDrive, is £60 a year at many retailers. I assume they will jack up the price later.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  > Microsoft are still making personal office subscriptions cheaper than buying office was. Nah you are missing the forest for the trees. Office at the moment is a gateway drug for Microsoft to get you on their cloud services. Office is not an end product anymore, it is a hook to capture market into their cloud services. They could sell office at a loss and still make money from all the Corporate/government contracts they got hooked on Azure.
- ericd 5y ago
  Eh I still chose to buy, I usually use a copy of office for 5-10 years, so it’s still vastly cheaper to buy.
5y ago

beowulfey 5y ago

I would still gladly pay for updates—nobody expected to get updates for free, we always did it that way before. My impression is that the AppStore model, with the updates provided for free (for bug fixes, etc) is what began that shift to subscriptions. Before the App Store, it wasn’t easy to update software, so it was straightforward to lock updates behind paid upgrades.

chii 5y ago
> nobody expected to get updates for free if there's a security vulnerability, i'm sure you'd expect the update to be free.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  Let's say feature updates make sense to pay for, bug fixes don't.
- bosie 5y ago
  Why though?
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    Because If I get a faulty vacuum cleaner I expect to be able to exchange it for a working one for free.
    - chii 5y ago
      and yet if a lock could be picked, you don't get to exchange it for another one that couldn't be! Analogies breakdown when compared too carefully. I think software sellers is doing a courtesy when they provide security updates for free. They are not legally obligated to do it. The users are entitled to switch to a competitor however - by not having their data held hostage (which, i think modern laws don't properly address).
      - Kbelicius 5y ago

fleddr 5y ago

Or...updates nobody asked for. Quite a few casual users might be perfectly happy with Office 2003, or Adobe PS6, as anything after that they don't need. And not just that, they may not want the UI to be revamped every 2 months. The option to just have stable, working software is increasingly taken away. Not to mention the anti competitive nature of these two parties. They can just bundle an additional app in their subscription at not additional cost, and this way drive a competitor out of business.

ponow 5y ago
There is a serious amount of diversity on the app stores, though. It's not as if you must use Photoshop, with zero alternatives.
pards 5y ago
Like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29983959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29983959 Forced updates that remove or disable features people use.
can16358p 5y ago
Reminds me of XD versus Sketch. Adobe created and added XD (Sketch competitor) and put it into its CC. Sketch's still doing great but I honestly don't know how long it will be the case as XD becomes more mature.
hunter-gatherer 5y ago
Your point needs more attention IMO. Most updates for most software don't add usability or convenience for the end user. The way conversational rhetoric with my family and friends seems to have transitioned from "wow, these computers are cool! This will really help with x" to complete frustration.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Jonathan Blow posted something a while back I thought was interesting: type "frustrating" into Google image search. Notice anything about the results? https://www.google.com/search?q=frustrating&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=frustrating&tbm=isch

coldtea 5y ago

>This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. Blame the victim? We din't get any impression, as we don't set the prices. The companies set those prices. For example Adobe customers never got or set any impression that "software should be free/low price". They paid 100s to 1000s of dollars for each update or package respectively, and they still got the mandatory subscription (and were some of the first users to be hit with one). >How do you achieve super cheap products made by people making super high pay? Money doesn’t just materialize out of thin air to make that work. We don't want "super cheap products", we want reasonably priced products we own after we buy.

Hnrobert42 5y ago
This is not blaming the victim as there are no victims. OP’s is wrong that SaaS is rent sending. Software should not be free (in cost), yet always receive new features and updates. Indeed, the alternative is the ad-tech surveillance state.
- coldtea 5y ago
  That's a strawman. Who exactly demanded "free in cost" plus "always receive new features and updates"? If the software companies (in mobile in particular) had a race to the bottom, it's on them - and on those (hobbyists etc) that undercutted them (though, if hobbyists can undercut your prices, is your product really worth that much, or could it just as well be replaced with a hobbyist-made app?). Users have since forever paid top dollar for shrink wrapped and then downloaded software like MS Office or Abobe Creative Suite and co, that now is nonetheless "subscription based".
  - Hnrobert42 5y ago
    Well if this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. You raise the statesman that I said people claim software should be both free and maintained indefinitely. I did no such thing. I merely asserted that it should not be.
  - 5y ago

cycomanic 5y ago

>This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. When and how did that happen? SAAS has been the wet dream of the big software houses for a long time, it was just not really acceptable for people for quite a while. It's also sounds like this is about poor software developers making a living, but the reality is that software developers are amongst the highest paid professions and software companies are ruling the world and typically have the highest profits. In fact I would argue this really started to take over when investors realised that they could get insane ROI from very little investments for software companies and started to expect these kind of returns. The other thing that is driving this push is that the FANGS want to commoditize everything except for "owning" large amount of data, because that's their value add and everything else is just a cost centre for them.

irutirw222 5y ago

The problem I have with this post, is that it's assuming erroneously the "eternal development" mindset. Once a software has reached maturity, beaides (very rare) security fixes there is not much that needs to be done to it. Is anyone seeing LaTeX receiving feature updates all the time? Or grep or vim in need of continuous updates? No! And MSO, which was mentioned here multiple times, also has reached maturity decades ago. So the "dev needs to be payed" argument is wrong. Correct is: "while the software is not yet mature enough, dev needs to be payed". The problem with predatory subscription is that they usually kick in for mature software, when there is justification any more for paying fictitious work (perhaps that's why MS change the UI every few years, because hey, new UI lurea gullible customera while also making us look as if we actually do some programming here).

aceazzameen 5y ago
This is spot on. Adobe went subscription once their software was more than mature. Now that it's SaaS they're using paid subscribers as beta testers of features. Every once in a while something good comes of it. But then there's features no one asked for which introduce new bugs.

bambax 5y ago

> Given that developers need to be paid, and resources cost money This sounds true, but isn't. Some software grow new features and should sell new versions to users who want those features. But many applications continue to be rented while they reached peak features a long time ago. Office 97 was fine. Office 2003 was more than fine. You buy it once, you should not need to buy it again, or "rent" it, for no benefit at all. Same for Windows NT / 7. Every Windows version since 7 is worse than the previous one! Developers need to be paid only if they build something users want. Many times, the opposite seems to be the case: they build things users would really prefer not to have, yet are difficult to avoid.

yoz-y 5y ago
Upgrade pricing leads to feature bloat. Sure you could stop at say office 2003 features and then only update it (for free) when you need to fix bugs and compatibility issues with new systems. But that's still work! So your only chance is to abandon the software and reap the insults coming from clients who upgraded to a new Windows installation and can no longer run your software. If there was some realistic ways to bundle software in a fashion that it will continue to run forever even if environment changes, then sure–but your software better not be networked. (This is also where docker and the likes come into play).

HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago

> subscription to software that never sees updates nor has infrastructure costs. That’s just a money grab There is one case I can think of where this makes sense from both the provider and consumer side: niche software that has a high development cost and a small market. In this case, the one-time acquisition cost might be too high for many customers, so moving to a subscription model allows them to use something they couldn't otherwise afford. Of course, that's not to say that updates shouldn't be expected.

voisin 5y ago

> How do you achieve super cheap products made by people making super high pay? Money doesn’t just materialize out of thin air to make that work. The marginal cost of another sale approaches zero. So if you make a popular enough product, you can sell many units rather than relying on rent seeking from your existing user base by forcing them into a SaaS subscription. Yes, the onus is now on the company to make good products that people want, and to continue to innovate such that people want to pay for the next upgrade. It’s easier to rent seek.

waspight 5y ago

It would be rather hard to sell one time software today and then sell an update once a year. Why? Because most software is in the cloud or has a great dependence on at least a backend in the cloud. I think it is more difficult (and dumb, from a security/quality perspective) to have multiple versions of the backend, with different patches and features applied depending on version bought.

AlexandrB 5y ago

> This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. This didn't happen by accident. Apple still refuses to add a paid version upgrades feature to the App Store. And by providing software like Numbers/Pages at a loss (for free) they normalized a zero or near zero cost of software in their ecosystem. At this point I'm pretty sure this is an intentional strategy of "Commoditizing their Complement"[1] on Apple's part. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

doctor_eval 5y ago
I don’t think I read it at the time, but Joel’s explanation of what was going to happen to Sun was prophetic, and also explained some of the craziness of Java that I’ve never been able to work out. I also agree with you about Apples’s position re upgrades, which - until now - I found quite baffling. I guess that the subscription model is intended by Apple to create both a lower barrier to entry (cheaper in the short term) which reduces the entry cost for complements, and long term recurring revenue which potentially creates a lock-in effect - quitting the ecosystem means losing access to the investment in apps on the platform. It’s win-win from Apple’s perspective. On the other hand I have always argued that when you write an app for iOS, you’re creating an accessory for their devices, and so you do so on Apple’s terms. (That’s fine IMO, as long as you understand that this is what you’re doing).

stonecharioteer 5y ago

I'd be okay to pay for a specific version of a product and LTS for 5 years. Do what Sublime Text does. Let me live with an older version and I'll happily upgrade if you give me features I'm interested in. Subscription models suck because yes it takes development time to come up with fixes and new features but sometimes I don't want your new features. I just want the old thing.

e-neko 5y ago

> How do you achieve super cheap products made by people making super high pay? By economy of scale. If you have 50,000 paying users, $10 each, that should cover either 5 man-years of average software development, or 2 man-years of one senior/principal level developer. Most products in question have users in the millions, paying 10 to 100 times as much. Do the math.

Atlas667 5y ago

I think your comment is the most sensible because it tries to understand it. The bad part about these models is that they reflect the power of stakeholders in a company, not so much the worker/programmers. It reflects a mode of production keen on generating capital, not the interests of the workers on getting their salary, whatever many figures it may have. The finger must be pointed at stakeholders doing what they do best; finding ways to generate capital. There is no animosity generated between work done and one paying for it at a market value, but there is between work and capital generation.

lenocinor 5y ago

I appreciate this reply. I often see nerds on the internet decry things without understanding the needs or motivations of people not like them, especially on topics that really bother nerds. Thanks for pushing hard to do that personally. It’s inspiring me to try to do it more too.

omnomynous 5y ago

>Money doesn’t just materialize out of thin air to make that work. Except when money does materialize out of thin air with fractional reserve banking. That's not for us, though. Obviously, we all know that burnin'-money for us tech folks grows on VC trees these days.