5 ms·

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 f

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.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  Isn't a big reason for this development precisely that many didn't pay top dollar? There used to be a lot of Photoshop, Windows and Office warez floating around.
  - Zak 5y ago
    I suspect most of the piracy in those apps was among people who were never the target market. Someone who wants to make funny cat pictures, or even edit photos they took with their $300 point-and-shoot camera isn't going to pay $400 for Photoshop. Professionals who make their living using Photoshop usually don't have much trouble with the cost, whether paid monthly, or occasionally when a new version has a feature they care about. Being able to bring in some more casual customers with a lower initial cost is just a bonus.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    No, since that's orthogonal. You can pirate with or without a subscription.
- rglullis 5y ago
  One could argue that MS Office and Adobe products were always "subscription-based", if companies and professionals never left the update treadmill. After all, if all you need is MS-Office 2000 or Adobe Photoshop 6, no subscription is needed and you can still find licenses around.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    One could argue it. But they would then have to answer why would non-business buyers, that is, users who did "leave the update treadmill" and bought new updates (or skipped them) at their convenience, suffer the subscription model too?
    - rglullis 5y ago
      Because they are such an irrelevant part of the market that they basically could disappear and no one would care, and the hobbyist/non-professional people who don't mind using years-old software could as well just use Free/Open alternatives? There is nothing stopping Joe-who-only-pays-full-licences to continue using his MS 2007 Office suite, is there?
      - skydhash 5y ago
        Os support, especially in the Apple world.
        rglullis 5y ago
        Right, which is yet another explanation of why companies moved into subscription-based models: unless you are willing to be frozen in time with all your software tools, you will be in the update treadmill one way or another. Bitrot exists, and someone needs to pay for it. A license you paid 15 years ago does not (and should not) cover that.
        warrenm 5y ago
        It's not merely "especially in the Apple world" - very little in the way of older Windows/DOS software still works today (unless you're also running old/unsupported hardware (subject to its own foibles) and operating systems Products get deprecated/go out of support all the bloody time - there is nothing wrong with that: should Ford have to "support" the Edsel or Model T today "for free"? Why?
claaams 5y ago
In the case of Adobe you are paying for near malware Levels of surveillance on your device to use their products.
- Hnrobert42 5y ago
  Like what?
tempodox 5y ago
Not true. I prefer paying for upgrades on my own schedule to a subscription any day.
- gefhfffh 5y ago
  Including skipping upgrades?
  - aceazzameen 5y ago
    Yes. I don't need every upgrade, especially when 9/10 it includes new bugs on essential productivity software.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      Plus today it's easier than ever to make updates (or bunches of related updates) selectable and installable on demand. So you could skip 90% of the BS updates you don't care for and get the 10% you do, as opposed to pay the full update price or maintain a subscription... In other words, you could get a base product, they keep maintaining, and even release new versions you can update to for free/cheap, but with features you haven't paid for locked. Then, if you paid for a feature, you get to enjoy it for all free/cheap updates of the program.
      - aceazzameen 5y ago
        That's how software used to be before they went SaaS.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ballenf 5y ago
> Software should not be free (in cost), yet always receive new features and updates. That sounds like an extension of "you wouldn't download a car".
- Hnrobert42 5y ago
  How so?
AlexandrB 5y ago
> Indeed, the alternative is the ad-tech surveillance state. One way to increase recurring revenue when you have a captive audience (i.e. they can't refuse an update) is by adding adware to your software. I think SaaS is the driving force behind the ad-tech surveillance state, not the thing that will save us from it.
- Hnrobert42 5y ago
  Can you give me some examples of SaaS that has ads? Cable TV, Hulu, newspapers. They all do it, but I can’t think of any SaaS providers that also push ads. I suppose cross-promoting s/w from the same vendor is an ad, but those kinds of ads don’t require intrusive surveillance.

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.
cinntaile 5y ago
Isn't a big reason for this development precisely that many didn't pay top dollar? There used to be a lot of Photoshop, Windows and Office warez floating around.
- Zak 5y ago
  I suspect most of the piracy in those apps was among people who were never the target market. Someone who wants to make funny cat pictures, or even edit photos they took with their $300 point-and-shoot camera isn't going to pay $400 for Photoshop. Professionals who make their living using Photoshop usually don't have much trouble with the cost, whether paid monthly, or occasionally when a new version has a feature they care about. Being able to bring in some more casual customers with a lower initial cost is just a bonus.
- coldtea 5y ago
  No, since that's orthogonal. You can pirate with or without a subscription.
rglullis 5y ago
One could argue that MS Office and Adobe products were always "subscription-based", if companies and professionals never left the update treadmill. After all, if all you need is MS-Office 2000 or Adobe Photoshop 6, no subscription is needed and you can still find licenses around.
- coldtea 5y ago
  One could argue it. But they would then have to answer why would non-business buyers, that is, users who did "leave the update treadmill" and bought new updates (or skipped them) at their convenience, suffer the subscription model too?
  - rglullis 5y ago
    Because they are such an irrelevant part of the market that they basically could disappear and no one would care, and the hobbyist/non-professional people who don't mind using years-old software could as well just use Free/Open alternatives? There is nothing stopping Joe-who-only-pays-full-licences to continue using his MS 2007 Office suite, is there?
    - skydhash 5y ago
      Os support, especially in the Apple world.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        Right, which is yet another explanation of why companies moved into subscription-based models: unless you are willing to be frozen in time with all your software tools, you will be in the update treadmill one way or another. Bitrot exists, and someone needs to pay for it. A license you paid 15 years ago does not (and should not) cover that.
      - warrenm 5y ago
        It's not merely "especially in the Apple world" - very little in the way of older Windows/DOS software still works today (unless you're also running old/unsupported hardware (subject to its own foibles) and operating systems Products get deprecated/go out of support all the bloody time - there is nothing wrong with that: should Ford have to "support" the Edsel or Model T today "for free"? Why?

claaams 5y ago

In the case of Adobe you are paying for near malware Levels of surveillance on your device to use their products.

Hnrobert42 5y ago
Like what?

tempodox 5y ago

Not true. I prefer paying for upgrades on my own schedule to a subscription any day.

gefhfffh 5y ago
Including skipping upgrades?
- aceazzameen 5y ago
  Yes. I don't need every upgrade, especially when 9/10 it includes new bugs on essential productivity software.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Plus today it's easier than ever to make updates (or bunches of related updates) selectable and installable on demand. So you could skip 90% of the BS updates you don't care for and get the 10% you do, as opposed to pay the full update price or maintain a subscription... In other words, you could get a base product, they keep maintaining, and even release new versions you can update to for free/cheap, but with features you haven't paid for locked. Then, if you paid for a feature, you get to enjoy it for all free/cheap updates of the program.
    - aceazzameen 5y ago
      That's how software used to be before they went SaaS.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ballenf 5y ago

> Software should not be free (in cost), yet always receive new features and updates. That sounds like an extension of "you wouldn't download a car".

Hnrobert42 5y ago
How so?

AlexandrB 5y ago

> Indeed, the alternative is the ad-tech surveillance state. One way to increase recurring revenue when you have a captive audience (i.e. they can't refuse an update) is by adding adware to your software. I think SaaS is the driving force behind the ad-tech surveillance state, not the thing that will save us from it.

Hnrobert42 5y ago
Can you give me some examples of SaaS that has ads? Cable TV, Hulu, newspapers. They all do it, but I can’t think of any SaaS providers that also push ads. I suppose cross-promoting s/w from the same vendor is an ad, but those kinds of ads don’t require intrusive surveillance.