5 ms·

As many readers here probably understand from first hand experience, software isn’t a final product (typically). The majority of software requires maintenance

As many readers here probably understand from first hand experience, software isn’t a final product (typically). The majority of software requires maintenance and any ongoing feature updates have a continual cost on the company. If they asked for a subscription and said, no more updates after tomorrow, then sure that’s Bs. But especially for something like Final Cut, you’ll get continual updates and feature improvements, and you get recurring value. I’m all for FOSS, but there are many cases where the paid incentive version is far better than open offerings, and that’s just how it is today.

dmreedy 3y ago
I don't think the concern is that the subscription doesn't bring value. Just that it builds no equity. Once the renting agreement ends, you lose all the access you once had, not just access to future things to come. (edit: I don't know if this is actually true of Final Cut Pro's model)
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Right, but that's the tradeoff and it's a good tradeoff for many. If you only need Final Cut Pro for a 2-month project, it's amazing because you'll save so much money. And any time you need it again, you just resubscribe. You're never losing access permanently, it's just $5 away. The point is that the flexibility and ongoing updates are a more beneficial tradeoff. A lot of people (like myself) simply don't care about owning equity in software, so we have eternal access. It's just a tool, and it loses value over time without updates anyways.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    > It's just a tool, and it loses value over time without updates anyways. Why? It will continue to do exactly the same thing. If that thing had no value to you why are you getting it? Edit: > Because the world moves forward. Something that might have worked well 5 years ago but has had no updates or improvements to keep up with competition is ultimately not as useful as it once was. Not everything is a javascript library though.
    - mynameisvlad 3y ago
      Because the world moves forward. Something that might have worked well 5 years ago but has had no updates or improvements to keep up with competition is ultimately not as useful as it once was. Depending on how good other software has gotten, it very well could be a case of wasting money by not switching over depending on how much you value your time.
    - massysett 3y ago
      It will continue to do exactly the same thing…on exactly the same hardware and OS. Chances are that in several years, you’ll be using newer hardware and a newer OS. So the old software might not work at all. Or, it might work, but not use new hardware capabilities. An example of this is old X11 software: it runs on a modern Mac, but is unaware of Retina displays so it looks horrible.
    - jasode 3y ago
      >It will continue to do exactly the same thing. If that thing had no value The parent poster you're replying to wrote "loses value" not "no value". As an example, I have the last version of Adobe Creative Suite CS6 ($2599) that had a permanent license with CDs instead of subscription download but that came out in 2012. Over the last 11 years, that old software has continually lost value. The old version cannot easily be installed on newer macOS versions after Catalina. I can't freeze my os version at Catalina to satisfy Adobe CS6 because other tools like the latest Xcode and Logic Pro forces you to upgrade to newer macOS versions. I can't freeze Xcode at an old version because Apple's App Store rejects apps built by old versions of Xcode. And then you have the lack of desirable new features. E.g. the old Premiere Pro in CS6 can't open newer ProRes HDR HLG files. The rest of the world around a particular software changes which then affects its value. So "owning the software forever" doesn't necessarily translate into continually using it forever in a practical way.
- mattlutze 3y ago
  It's generally better for your finances to not pay 100% of a committment today if interest on payments is below the immediate return of how you'd otherwise use the money. The way we use a platform over time changes, as does options in the market and the way a business treats that platform. If we can export and keep our IP that was developed through the platform, it's not a bad thing to have the option to cut and run without having sunk purchase costs. It also provides a signal for the business's product team to use with finance to argue for how to continue updating the product. Ongoing engagement metrics and new conversions are continually reviewed. How those change with the release of, or marketing of, different features directly drives the development of the platform—it should in the best case see a more useful product in our hands over time.
- criddell 3y ago
  That's true but I think a lot of professional users prefer the service model for cash flow (and maybe tax?) reasons. For those users, maybe a monthly service fee is better than purchasing?
Uehreka 3y ago
I feel like folks on HN (many of us developers ourselves) give this theory too much credance. Subscription pricing may be necessary to finance continuous development, but that doesn’t mean it will. Many developers (particularly larger corporations like Adobe) have taken advantage of this perception to see how much money they can squeeze out of people while making… fewer updates than their users are paying for (to put it nicely). I’m sure there are indie developers who get away with this too (although I feel less bad about that). I’m not totally against this way of thinking, but I do think we need to start presenting it as the double-edged issue it currently is, not the fresh perspective it used to be.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Agreed, and further I don't think I buy the premise that without updates it won't work. For SaaS that's definitely true. For some desktop software that's true too, but it's true far less than we make it out to be nowadays. I have a handful of Android apps that got updated in a direction I didn't like that I still run and still run fine (sometimes dropping server supported features like old PocketCasts before the NPR acquisition) even though they haven't been updated in years. For apps that don't rely on server support this is nearly always true.
  - spacephysics 3y ago
    I agree, and that’s a good argument for an alternative icing model that includes a one time payment for a version, I think jetbrains does this (and a discount on subsequent update patches)
pantulis 3y ago
"As many readers here probably understand from first hand experience, software isn’t a final product (typically)." But then Logic Pro for the mac has been a one time purchase for me since Logic Pro X and has been religiously updated every year with tons of new content and features. Probably to empower Mac sales, which is a boost that they feel the iPad does not need.

dmreedy 3y ago

I don't think the concern is that the subscription doesn't bring value. Just that it builds no equity. Once the renting agreement ends, you lose all the access you once had, not just access to future things to come. (edit: I don't know if this is actually true of Final Cut Pro's model)

crazygringo 3y ago
Right, but that's the tradeoff and it's a good tradeoff for many. If you only need Final Cut Pro for a 2-month project, it's amazing because you'll save so much money. And any time you need it again, you just resubscribe. You're never losing access permanently, it's just $5 away. The point is that the flexibility and ongoing updates are a more beneficial tradeoff. A lot of people (like myself) simply don't care about owning equity in software, so we have eternal access. It's just a tool, and it loses value over time without updates anyways.
- nottorp 3y ago
  > It's just a tool, and it loses value over time without updates anyways. Why? It will continue to do exactly the same thing. If that thing had no value to you why are you getting it? Edit: > Because the world moves forward. Something that might have worked well 5 years ago but has had no updates or improvements to keep up with competition is ultimately not as useful as it once was. Not everything is a javascript library though.
  - mynameisvlad 3y ago
    Because the world moves forward. Something that might have worked well 5 years ago but has had no updates or improvements to keep up with competition is ultimately not as useful as it once was. Depending on how good other software has gotten, it very well could be a case of wasting money by not switching over depending on how much you value your time.
  - massysett 3y ago
    It will continue to do exactly the same thing…on exactly the same hardware and OS. Chances are that in several years, you’ll be using newer hardware and a newer OS. So the old software might not work at all. Or, it might work, but not use new hardware capabilities. An example of this is old X11 software: it runs on a modern Mac, but is unaware of Retina displays so it looks horrible.
  - jasode 3y ago
    >It will continue to do exactly the same thing. If that thing had no value The parent poster you're replying to wrote "loses value" not "no value". As an example, I have the last version of Adobe Creative Suite CS6 ($2599) that had a permanent license with CDs instead of subscription download but that came out in 2012. Over the last 11 years, that old software has continually lost value. The old version cannot easily be installed on newer macOS versions after Catalina. I can't freeze my os version at Catalina to satisfy Adobe CS6 because other tools like the latest Xcode and Logic Pro forces you to upgrade to newer macOS versions. I can't freeze Xcode at an old version because Apple's App Store rejects apps built by old versions of Xcode. And then you have the lack of desirable new features. E.g. the old Premiere Pro in CS6 can't open newer ProRes HDR HLG files. The rest of the world around a particular software changes which then affects its value. So "owning the software forever" doesn't necessarily translate into continually using it forever in a practical way.
mattlutze 3y ago
It's generally better for your finances to not pay 100% of a committment today if interest on payments is below the immediate return of how you'd otherwise use the money. The way we use a platform over time changes, as does options in the market and the way a business treats that platform. If we can export and keep our IP that was developed through the platform, it's not a bad thing to have the option to cut and run without having sunk purchase costs. It also provides a signal for the business's product team to use with finance to argue for how to continue updating the product. Ongoing engagement metrics and new conversions are continually reviewed. How those change with the release of, or marketing of, different features directly drives the development of the platform—it should in the best case see a more useful product in our hands over time.
criddell 3y ago
That's true but I think a lot of professional users prefer the service model for cash flow (and maybe tax?) reasons. For those users, maybe a monthly service fee is better than purchasing?

Uehreka 3y ago

I feel like folks on HN (many of us developers ourselves) give this theory too much credance. Subscription pricing may be necessary to finance continuous development, but that doesn’t mean it will. Many developers (particularly larger corporations like Adobe) have taken advantage of this perception to see how much money they can squeeze out of people while making… fewer updates than their users are paying for (to put it nicely). I’m sure there are indie developers who get away with this too (although I feel less bad about that). I’m not totally against this way of thinking, but I do think we need to start presenting it as the double-edged issue it currently is, not the fresh perspective it used to be.

freedomben 3y ago
Agreed, and further I don't think I buy the premise that without updates it won't work. For SaaS that's definitely true. For some desktop software that's true too, but it's true far less than we make it out to be nowadays. I have a handful of Android apps that got updated in a direction I didn't like that I still run and still run fine (sometimes dropping server supported features like old PocketCasts before the NPR acquisition) even though they haven't been updated in years. For apps that don't rely on server support this is nearly always true.
- spacephysics 3y ago
  I agree, and that’s a good argument for an alternative icing model that includes a one time payment for a version, I think jetbrains does this (and a discount on subsequent update patches)

pantulis 3y ago

"As many readers here probably understand from first hand experience, software isn’t a final product (typically)." But then Logic Pro for the mac has been a one time purchase for me since Logic Pro X and has been religiously updated every year with tons of new content and features. Probably to empower Mac sales, which is a boost that they feel the iPad does not need.