4 ms·

Software is expensive to make. It can take years to build and if the price tag resembled true cost of software, very few would be ready to pay the full price. S

by dt3ft 4y ago

Software is expensive to make. It can take years to build and if the price tag resembled true cost of software, very few would be ready to pay the full price. Subscription makes software available to the masses.

senttoschool 4y ago
This. Maybe people forgot about the days of having to buy software one-time for $59.99 and then have to buy a new version if you want the latest. Today, you can probably get that same service for $10/month and you're continuously getting updates. Subscriptions make more sense for both users and businesses. It's not like you can fire the entire product team once you finish shipping a version of the product. And for users, the upfront cost is less and you're getting updates more frequently. You can also cancel if the service isn't what you expected. The power swings in the favor of the user more. At the end of the day, it's all about life-time value anyways. Selling two copies of your software for $120 total is the same revenue as selling $10 subscriptions for 12 months.
- squiffsquiff 4y ago
  There's also the manufacturers' side of this equation. If you have lifetime purchase versions, users will expect a period of support that will probably be longer than the cadence between new releases. As a result you wind up supporting multiple versions of your software, as famously happened with Microsoft's Windows and office franchises
- marssaxman 4y ago
  > Today, you can probably get that same service for $10/month and you're continuously getting updates. I remember when you could buy software, learn it, and use it effectively, without having constant habit-breaking changes stuffed down your throat. I remember when you owned your data and didn't have to rent it from a service provider. I remember what it was like to trust my machine, because everything was happening locally and software wasn't phoning home.
Bancakes 4y ago
Then most people wouldn't be purchasing name-brand AAA software and would likely settle for FOSS or indie apps. Even better, you wouldn't be expected to be using said commercial solutions. Subscriptions incentivize selling programs that are in a perpetual unfinished state. We lost the opportunity to call a project "feature-complete". LZMA2, H264, and RSA/AES were developed years ago, yet 7zip, netflix, and ssh still need regular updates for some nonsensical reason.

by dt3ft 4y ago

senttoschool 4y ago

This. Maybe people forgot about the days of having to buy software one-time for $59.99 and then have to buy a new version if you want the latest. Today, you can probably get that same service for $10/month and you're continuously getting updates. Subscriptions make more sense for both users and businesses. It's not like you can fire the entire product team once you finish shipping a version of the product. And for users, the upfront cost is less and you're getting updates more frequently. You can also cancel if the service isn't what you expected. The power swings in the favor of the user more. At the end of the day, it's all about life-time value anyways. Selling two copies of your software for $120 total is the same revenue as selling $10 subscriptions for 12 months.

squiffsquiff 4y ago
There's also the manufacturers' side of this equation. If you have lifetime purchase versions, users will expect a period of support that will probably be longer than the cadence between new releases. As a result you wind up supporting multiple versions of your software, as famously happened with Microsoft's Windows and office franchises
marssaxman 4y ago
> Today, you can probably get that same service for $10/month and you're continuously getting updates. I remember when you could buy software, learn it, and use it effectively, without having constant habit-breaking changes stuffed down your throat. I remember when you owned your data and didn't have to rent it from a service provider. I remember what it was like to trust my machine, because everything was happening locally and software wasn't phoning home.

Bancakes 4y ago

Then most people wouldn't be purchasing name-brand AAA software and would likely settle for FOSS or indie apps. Even better, you wouldn't be expected to be using said commercial solutions. Subscriptions incentivize selling programs that are in a perpetual unfinished state. We lost the opportunity to call a project "feature-complete". LZMA2, H264, and RSA/AES were developed years ago, yet 7zip, netflix, and ssh still need regular updates for some nonsensical reason.