3 ms·

I see your point, and I largely agree with you. One trickynes is with the "This incentivizes them to deliver value" part. The problem is that if the software j

I see your point, and I largely agree with you. One trickynes is with the "This incentivizes them to deliver value" part. The problem is that if the software just "works" and there are no compelling new features the user will quite rationally stop buying new updates. Which incentivises the developer to make sure that either the software never really "just works" or that they hype up new features to create FOMO. They will probably do both. I guess they could also let go a portion of their developers and keep a skeleton crew around to maintain the product at current But that is not a realistic prospect for many reasons. People talked about this regarding Photoshop. They said the new features are cool, but far from necessary, which made users stick with "old" but perfectly fine versions. The rumour was that that forced Adobe to change to a subscription model. But of course I don't have any first hand knowledge so it might be false.

cesarb 4y ago
> Which incentivises the developer to make sure that either the software never really "just works" or that they hype up new features to create FOMO. Nowadays, there's also the security scare. If you don't immediately update to the latest and greatest release, hackers will invade your system, destroy your data, and eat all the food on your fridge.
- XCSme 4y ago
  When in truth, I think most security issues are created when a newly released, non-safe version reaches the public. Also, I think it's safe to assume that any system can be compromised at some point in one way or another, the best way is to focus on backups, monitoring and alerting.
TeMPOraL 4y ago
Perhaps a good case study here is/will be Affinity. They produce graphics software competing directly with Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign, and their core differentiator is that they don't do subscriptions - you pay up front, and get a regular, perpetual license in return. Few months ago, they released version 2 of their software suite. There are some new features and a host of UI and performance improvements, but otherwise, the software is substantially the same as version 1. It would be interesting to learn what their current breakdown of {new users, users who upgraded to v2, users who stuck to v1} is. Myself, I upgraded only Affinity Photo to v2, because I wanted to play with non-destructive workflow that's enabled by some of the new features. I studied their product page extensively, and couldn't find anything else particularly compelling, at least not for my limited (and non-professional) use cases. v1 is still a fine product. (OK, I admit, 50% of the reason I upgraded, and 100% of the reason I bought the whole v1 suite in the first place, is because it's nice to do business with someone who isn't abusing their customers with subscriptions for a change.)
- rchaud 4y ago
  I'm an Affinity user too (Aff Publisher + Designer). I'm very happy with the one-time purchase. I felt a bit bad about not upgrading to V2, as I want to support the company. But GIMP works perfectly fine for me so I have not shelled out for Affinity Photo.
- PinguTS 4y ago
  I am a happy Affinity user myself. I just have version 1 for the simple fact, that version 2 doesn't run on any of my computers. My main is a MacPro 3,1 with Catalina. My wife, has a MacBook Pro M1. She brought version 2. New we have the problem, that version 1 cannot work with the files of version 2.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    > New we have the problem, that version 1 cannot work with the files of version 2. Oh yes, that surprised me recently. I have both installed on my machine, and some file associations in the OS still link to version 1. I didn't expect v1 to flat out refuse to work with a file saved from v2.
- pdpi 4y ago
  If you use Affinity Photo for photo work, what do you use for library management? It's basically the only thing keeping me on Lightroom.
  - Espressosaurus 4y ago
    One of these days I need to give Capture One or Photo Mechanic a try. Dark Table is a good try but just not very user friendly I've found.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Nothing? To this day, I don't understand the concept of "library management" and Lightroom as a tool. Might be simply because I'm neither a photographer nor a digital artist. In decades of doing all kinds of ad-hoc, amateur, one-off works, the amount of photos and designs I collected is entirely manageable with default filesystem tools (explorer.exe) - or Linux shell, or Emacs, if I feel like being fancy. In fact, I seem to be developing apprehension towards any kind of domain-specific "library managers". I tolerate game launchers/library managers like Steam or Origin or whatever, but that's only because it's the blessed way to legally buy games without having to purchase physical objects (CDs, DVDs, ...). But other than that? For images, in the past I used ACDSee; these days, I use IrfanView. Both have some library management capabilities. I don't use them. Same is the case for music - it's fine of the player wants to provide virtual collections based on metadata, but if it tries to use them to abstract away the file system, I'll throw it out and look for a replacement. To date, I don't use Calibre for dealing with my Kindle, because every time I checked, the app was 90% about library management - meanwhile, all I actually want from it is the ability to convert between ebook formats.
emodendroket 4y ago
There are always going to be people not paying that much attention. A subscription model makes revenue a lot more predictable, so the appeal is easy to see for anything you need for work and therefore might consent to a subscription for.
JohnFen 4y ago
> The rumour was that that forced Adobe to change to a subscription model. But of course it didn't do any such thing. Adobe could have produced software that people wanted to buy, instead.
jjk166 4y ago
> Which incentivises the developer to make sure that either the software never really "just works" If they are deliberately limiting their current product, that just makes it easier for a competitor to come in and steal their business. Every upgrade season people are going to be asking themselves "do I stick with this janky product or do I look to see if there's something better out there?" Similarly if a company overhypes an update, it will make customers more skeptical of updates in the future. Generally it's pretty easy to wait a few months after a new release is out to see if it's positively received. There are more nefarious antipatterns, like putting in bugs that don't crop up until around when the next upgrade becomes available, or breaking compatibility between versions so once a critical mass switches voluntarily, everyone else is pretty much forced. But really there's no system immune to abuse by sufficiently motivated bad actors.

cesarb 4y ago

> Which incentivises the developer to make sure that either the software never really "just works" or that they hype up new features to create FOMO. Nowadays, there's also the security scare. If you don't immediately update to the latest and greatest release, hackers will invade your system, destroy your data, and eat all the food on your fridge.

XCSme 4y ago
When in truth, I think most security issues are created when a newly released, non-safe version reaches the public. Also, I think it's safe to assume that any system can be compromised at some point in one way or another, the best way is to focus on backups, monitoring and alerting.

TeMPOraL 4y ago

Perhaps a good case study here is/will be Affinity. They produce graphics software competing directly with Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign, and their core differentiator is that they don't do subscriptions - you pay up front, and get a regular, perpetual license in return. Few months ago, they released version 2 of their software suite. There are some new features and a host of UI and performance improvements, but otherwise, the software is substantially the same as version 1. It would be interesting to learn what their current breakdown of {new users, users who upgraded to v2, users who stuck to v1} is. Myself, I upgraded only Affinity Photo to v2, because I wanted to play with non-destructive workflow that's enabled by some of the new features. I studied their product page extensively, and couldn't find anything else particularly compelling, at least not for my limited (and non-professional) use cases. v1 is still a fine product. (OK, I admit, 50% of the reason I upgraded, and 100% of the reason I bought the whole v1 suite in the first place, is because it's nice to do business with someone who isn't abusing their customers with subscriptions for a change.)

rchaud 4y ago
I'm an Affinity user too (Aff Publisher + Designer). I'm very happy with the one-time purchase. I felt a bit bad about not upgrading to V2, as I want to support the company. But GIMP works perfectly fine for me so I have not shelled out for Affinity Photo.
PinguTS 4y ago
I am a happy Affinity user myself. I just have version 1 for the simple fact, that version 2 doesn't run on any of my computers. My main is a MacPro 3,1 with Catalina. My wife, has a MacBook Pro M1. She brought version 2. New we have the problem, that version 1 cannot work with the files of version 2.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  > New we have the problem, that version 1 cannot work with the files of version 2. Oh yes, that surprised me recently. I have both installed on my machine, and some file associations in the OS still link to version 1. I didn't expect v1 to flat out refuse to work with a file saved from v2.
pdpi 4y ago
If you use Affinity Photo for photo work, what do you use for library management? It's basically the only thing keeping me on Lightroom.
- Espressosaurus 4y ago
  One of these days I need to give Capture One or Photo Mechanic a try. Dark Table is a good try but just not very user friendly I've found.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Nothing? To this day, I don't understand the concept of "library management" and Lightroom as a tool. Might be simply because I'm neither a photographer nor a digital artist. In decades of doing all kinds of ad-hoc, amateur, one-off works, the amount of photos and designs I collected is entirely manageable with default filesystem tools (explorer.exe) - or Linux shell, or Emacs, if I feel like being fancy. In fact, I seem to be developing apprehension towards any kind of domain-specific "library managers". I tolerate game launchers/library managers like Steam or Origin or whatever, but that's only because it's the blessed way to legally buy games without having to purchase physical objects (CDs, DVDs, ...). But other than that? For images, in the past I used ACDSee; these days, I use IrfanView. Both have some library management capabilities. I don't use them. Same is the case for music - it's fine of the player wants to provide virtual collections based on metadata, but if it tries to use them to abstract away the file system, I'll throw it out and look for a replacement. To date, I don't use Calibre for dealing with my Kindle, because every time I checked, the app was 90% about library management - meanwhile, all I actually want from it is the ability to convert between ebook formats.

emodendroket 4y ago

There are always going to be people not paying that much attention. A subscription model makes revenue a lot more predictable, so the appeal is easy to see for anything you need for work and therefore might consent to a subscription for.

JohnFen 4y ago

> The rumour was that that forced Adobe to change to a subscription model. But of course it didn't do any such thing. Adobe could have produced software that people wanted to buy, instead.

jjk166 4y ago

> Which incentivises the developer to make sure that either the software never really "just works" If they are deliberately limiting their current product, that just makes it easier for a competitor to come in and steal their business. Every upgrade season people are going to be asking themselves "do I stick with this janky product or do I look to see if there's something better out there?" Similarly if a company overhypes an update, it will make customers more skeptical of updates in the future. Generally it's pretty easy to wait a few months after a new release is out to see if it's positively received. There are more nefarious antipatterns, like putting in bugs that don't crop up until around when the next upgrade becomes available, or breaking compatibility between versions so once a critical mass switches voluntarily, everyone else is pretty much forced. But really there's no system immune to abuse by sufficiently motivated bad actors.