2 ms·
I get it, especially for a desktop software. I think Sublime’s new model is a good balance, in that you get updates for 3(?) years from license purchase, and af
by yladiz 4y ago
I get it, especially for a desktop software. I think Sublime’s new model is a good balance, in that you get updates for 3(?) years from license purchase, and after you can still use it as it was when the license ran out, but need to pay for the updates from then on. It does nag you but you can disable the update check and the only visible thing is in the corner saying you should buy a new license.
I think a subscription model can work if done right. It’s unreasonable to expect work on software to be free (and great if it is, like with so many open source programs and libraries), but it also isn’t okay to require payment in perpetuity just to use the program. With these in mind I think models like Sublime’s or Sketch’s are the right balance.
- smoldesu 4y agoSublime's "new model" is the same one the DAW industry has used to scalp career musicians for years. You know what that inspired? Piracy. Lots and lots of piracy. Just look at Avid's premium offerings - oppressively expensive recurring licenses that force any hobbyist musician to pirate the software. Or look at IDA Pro, same principle applies there. Obviously it's my fault for expecting anyone to build Mac software for free, but there are already great (free!) native text editors on Mac. If you're paying $100 for a cocoa UI version of software that already exists, frankly you're a fool.