3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoUpgrade 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).