3 ms·
I don't love the proliferation of SAAS, but your analogy isn't very solid. You don't pay upkeep on your hammer because it doesn't change. If it gets damaged, yo
by soiler 4y ago
I don't love the proliferation of SAAS, but your analogy isn't very solid. You don't pay upkeep on your hammer because it doesn't change. If it gets damaged, you do pay for repairs (although you probably don't go to the manufacturer). And if the manufacturer came out every X months to replace the head with some new alloy, you'd have to pay for that, too.
The point is that it's difficult to get software that is static anymore. The reason it's considered a service isn't _because_ it has a subscription model, it's because a product owner and an engineering team are constantly making bug fixes, improvements, security updates, etc. The problem with the model isn't that it exists - the problem is that we don't have a choice. When security is not an issue (like with MS Word), I'd take the single purchase almost every time.
- mathgladiator 4y ago> You don't pay upkeep on your hammer because it doesn't change You do. Hammers rust, the handle may break. Practically all things have some kind of upkeep.
- 9dev 4y agoAnd so what; the hammer manufacturer comes around and gives you fresh handles and a nice rust treatment every other month? That’s precisely the difference between tools that you buy once and SaaS subscriptions, and why the analogy is flawed.
- soiler 4y agoYes, that's a good rewording of the next sentence I wrote.