35 ms·

I don't mind subscriptions, I actually prefer them for many things. Especially for software I rely on I want the developers to consistently earn money so they

I don't mind subscriptions, I actually prefer them for many things. Especially for software I rely on I want the developers to consistently earn money so they keep motivated to work on it, do maintenance and fix bugs. I don't pay for software, I pay for the thing it allows me to do. Me paying a subscription fee creates an incentive and responsibility to keep things working. If there is a backend component to its even more important as they will have continuous cost. Also the "one off" model usually means you'll pay for versions which is not always cheaper. Take Sketch for example, some of my clients use it so I had to update each year spending 99$. With subscription I could just use it for a project and cancel afterwards saving money, something I have done with Adobe software (although I find their prices way too high). If something is too expensive I will find alternatives, that has imo nothing to do with the subscription model.

cpach 4y ago
Indeed. Buying an application is not necessarily like buying a wrench or a shovel.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Used to be. Look at drivers. Usually you update those yourself. Some managed services exist, but they break often, leaving the system in an unusable state.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  It should be, though. We have standardized hardware and OS API/ABI. Is it really reasonable for software industry to drain so much money just because it takes some effort to write a program that won't magically rot in a few years?
  - ghaff 4y ago
    You're perfectly welcome to keep your computer and its software running in isolation until the end of time or until the hardware fails. You just shouldn't expect to be able to connect to networks that change over time or to run software on new operating systems that address newly discovered security vulnerabilities or that otherwise get updated.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      Networks don't change over time. Centralized "application-servers" do. Making applications network-dependent when they don't need to be is a part of the problem. Security vulnerabilities don't change OS APIs. OS APIs are one of the most stable constructs in computing. There is a huge subset of software that doesn't require interaction over the network, and can be written to last. And even inherently network-dependent applications could be written using p2p technologies, making them independent on anyone's computer. Just because the everything sucks right now doesn't mean it has to.
danielvaughn 4y ago
It blows my mind that there are people in this thread who think that a business should charge once for a product that requires iteration or continued backend support.
- daveoc64 4y ago
  That's how a lot of games work (and have done for decades). You buy the game once, then get access to online multiplayer servers. Subscription models encourage constant needless changes to the product.
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    That was before the infrastructure to properly support monthly or seasonly subscriptions or passes existed. What are some other business models? Microtransactions, usually a lootbox like system so the gamblers pay for the rest of the players (quite profitable) DLCs I can't think of any other common ones.
  - alanfranz 4y ago
    Very few follow that trend, though, and servers sometime get shut down after a while, exactly because they have a price. And expansions, dlcs, seasons, are a way to subsidize such online services. How many games that offer no additional packages keep their online offering working forever?
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > How many games that offer no additional packages keep their online offering working forever? All the games that actually released binaries for hosting your own servers. That used to be the standard back in the day.
      - cinntaile 4y ago
        I don't think that's coming back, but it would be nice if they released the binaries once they stop providing servers for a game.
ekianjo 4y ago
> I pay for the thing it allows me to do Why can't software ever be "finished" or "sufficient" to meet your needs? I don't see the point of having software is updated day after day, month after month, if I am not interested in the new features they bring.
- julianlam 4y ago
  Security vulnerabilities are regularly found in many softwares (both online and offline), so that's one reason to upgrade.
  - NoMAD76 4y ago
    Security vulnerabilities should be fixed by patches/security fixes w/o forcing users to go up the ladder to "za niu anz shaini version" + "our new and enhanced x$/mo"
    - pixl97 4y ago
      Should be = not happening in a world where not doing it means more money. With that said it can get problematic fixing old third party packages that are no longer supported.
    - EugeneOZ 4y ago
      Then the money for doing this should be provided to developers by the universe.
  - Enginerrrd 4y ago
    Sure, but in some products that's really a non-issue. Like, take photoshop for an example. If you're a photographer that only ever edits your own photos, the odds of a needing a security update for photoshop are really minimal. If you regularly edit photos from clients, maybe it's worth considering.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      I'd say definitely: https://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/exploit_w32_jpg_vulnerability.shtml https://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/exploit_w32_jpg_vulnerabili...
open-source-ux 4y ago
"Take Sketch for example, some of my clients use it so I had to update each year spending 99$. With subscription I could just use it for a project and cancel afterwards saving money, something I have done with Adobe software" Sketch is now subscription-only; previously you paid for one year of updates. If you stopped paying for updates you could still continue to use the desktop app (i.e. the app did not expire). The current Sketch model means you can use the app only when you pay to use the app: pay every year, or pay for a monthly usage.

cpach 4y ago

Indeed. Buying an application is not necessarily like buying a wrench or a shovel.

tomrod 4y ago
Used to be. Look at drivers. Usually you update those yourself. Some managed services exist, but they break often, leaving the system in an unusable state.
bheadmaster 4y ago
It should be, though. We have standardized hardware and OS API/ABI. Is it really reasonable for software industry to drain so much money just because it takes some effort to write a program that won't magically rot in a few years?
- ghaff 4y ago
  You're perfectly welcome to keep your computer and its software running in isolation until the end of time or until the hardware fails. You just shouldn't expect to be able to connect to networks that change over time or to run software on new operating systems that address newly discovered security vulnerabilities or that otherwise get updated.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Networks don't change over time. Centralized "application-servers" do. Making applications network-dependent when they don't need to be is a part of the problem. Security vulnerabilities don't change OS APIs. OS APIs are one of the most stable constructs in computing. There is a huge subset of software that doesn't require interaction over the network, and can be written to last. And even inherently network-dependent applications could be written using p2p technologies, making them independent on anyone's computer. Just because the everything sucks right now doesn't mean it has to.

danielvaughn 4y ago

It blows my mind that there are people in this thread who think that a business should charge once for a product that requires iteration or continued backend support.

daveoc64 4y ago
That's how a lot of games work (and have done for decades). You buy the game once, then get access to online multiplayer servers. Subscription models encourage constant needless changes to the product.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  That was before the infrastructure to properly support monthly or seasonly subscriptions or passes existed. What are some other business models? Microtransactions, usually a lootbox like system so the gamblers pay for the rest of the players (quite profitable) DLCs I can't think of any other common ones.
- alanfranz 4y ago
  Very few follow that trend, though, and servers sometime get shut down after a while, exactly because they have a price. And expansions, dlcs, seasons, are a way to subsidize such online services. How many games that offer no additional packages keep their online offering working forever?
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > How many games that offer no additional packages keep their online offering working forever? All the games that actually released binaries for hosting your own servers. That used to be the standard back in the day.
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      I don't think that's coming back, but it would be nice if they released the binaries once they stop providing servers for a game.

ekianjo 4y ago

> I pay for the thing it allows me to do Why can't software ever be "finished" or "sufficient" to meet your needs? I don't see the point of having software is updated day after day, month after month, if I am not interested in the new features they bring.

julianlam 4y ago
Security vulnerabilities are regularly found in many softwares (both online and offline), so that's one reason to upgrade.
- NoMAD76 4y ago
  Security vulnerabilities should be fixed by patches/security fixes w/o forcing users to go up the ladder to "za niu anz shaini version" + "our new and enhanced x$/mo"
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Should be = not happening in a world where not doing it means more money. With that said it can get problematic fixing old third party packages that are no longer supported.
  - EugeneOZ 4y ago
    Then the money for doing this should be provided to developers by the universe.
- Enginerrrd 4y ago
  Sure, but in some products that's really a non-issue. Like, take photoshop for an example. If you're a photographer that only ever edits your own photos, the odds of a needing a security update for photoshop are really minimal. If you regularly edit photos from clients, maybe it's worth considering.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I'd say definitely: https://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/exploit_w32_jpg_vulnerability.shtml https://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/exploit_w32_jpg_vulnerabili...

open-source-ux 4y ago

"Take Sketch for example, some of my clients use it so I had to update each year spending 99$. With subscription I could just use it for a project and cancel afterwards saving money, something I have done with Adobe software" Sketch is now subscription-only; previously you paid for one year of updates. If you stopped paying for updates you could still continue to use the desktop app (i.e. the app did not expire). The current Sketch model means you can use the app only when you pay to use the app: pay every year, or pay for a monthly usage.