5 ms·
Recurring expenses very often isn't necessary though. For software the initial costs are big, but after that it can be pretty low maintenance or at least costi
by tjoff 5y ago
Recurring expenses very often isn't necessary though.
For software the initial costs are big, but after that it can be pretty low maintenance or at least costing much less to develop new features when the foundation is set.
When you start to think about recurring expenses that's when you have to find a way to justify those expenses. And that is usually by adding bloat and unnecessary features that those that already bought it might not even want.
So now you have to pay for features that you don't want to keep using the features that you've already bought? Tough sell...
- rodet 5y agoIn the case of local software, I agree. But most users expect connected services nowadays, which mean recurring costs for the developers as well in many cases.
- jtbayly 5y agoWhat do you mean by “connected services”? If that’s just a code word for cloud storage, then no, thank you. I’ve got cloud storage, and I don’t need yours. You’re just trying to justify charging me every month.
- falcolas 5y agoOnly if companies force their users onto “their cloud”. There are plenty of remote storage services; why can’t we use those? The answer is that it makes it harder to justify perpetual revenue streams then.
- jtbayly 5y agoFor example, 1Password. I’m happy to pay for a new version if my current version stops working. OS or browser update broke the app? I’ll pay for the new version. But they are trying to force me to pay every month, therefore they remove my ability to use the app at all unless I pay for their cloud storage which I neither need nor want.
- gefhfffh 5y agoWell, they don't stop working on an improved app and new features while you don't want to update. You don't only get compatibility with X with the new version but all that as well.
- ericd 5y agoIf no one wants those improvements, why should they pay them to keep working on it? Maybe 1pass should start working on something else to sell, and move the old stuff to minimal maintenance.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago>If no one wants those improvements, why should they pay them to keep working on it? They should not pay them, they should use one of the numerous alternatives.
- ericd 5y agoYep, and in the case of 1pw, I use Bitwarden instead.
- jtbayly 5y agoFine. They can work on the app and sell me on the benefits they’ve added.
- aceazzameen 5y agoPassword managers are an exception for me. I pay them so they can continually stay ahead with device/browser compatibility, security, and breaches.
- voisin 5y agoHonest question: Why use 1Password rather than a modern browser’s built in password management? Side note: Daring Fireball has had some discussion recently about 1Password moving to enterprise for employee password management and adopting the SaaS model in order to make this transition, alienating current client base in the process. A ballsy move!
- toyg 5y agoCompanies are not made of 100% engineers. Production costs are only part of recurring expenses in a business. At the very minimum you have to pay an executive team, a marketing team, a network/security team, a legal team, an accounting team... these guys don't work for free, and want to be paid every year at worst - more often, every month. Even if each "team" is one person in your garage, you have to pay them. And when you scale up, now you have investors to service, and they also would very much like to get regular dividends from their investment (or see constant growth in the value of their share). Note: I'm not defending the practice (if you dig in my comment history, you'll see pretty incendiary stuff against SaaS abuse very recently), I'm just saying that it's what business naturally tends like - in the same way it naturally tends towards paying people as little as possible, exploiting them, etc etc. This is what the market becomes when left to its own devices. If we don't like it, we need to proactively intervene in law.
- warrenm 5y ago>For software the initial costs are big, but after that it can be pretty low maintenance or at least costing much less to develop new features when the foundation is set. Written by someone who - probably - doesn't understand how complex software is to write/update/expand/maintain
- tjoff 5y agoOh I am. The whole point was that you might not need to write/update/expand as much as you think. And the case have previously been that such development is largely paid for by new users.