3 ms·

No, I am not basing my decision on the cost of using the product. I'm basing my decision on factors that have nothing to do with money. I think a perfect examp

by jchw 3y ago

No, I am not basing my decision on the cost of using the product. I'm basing my decision on factors that have nothing to do with money. I think a perfect example of this for me is IDA Pro, for which I own a license. When Hex-Rays switched over to a subscription model, I did not renew. I still use the old version today, and it works perfectly fine for my needs. The difference between buying it on subscription and not is whether or not I own it. I really own this copy; it's mine whether or not I'm connected to the Internet, and it will work in perpetuity until the sun burns out. That's how exchanging money for software is supposed to work.

not_a_shill 3y ago
>you might come to realize it's not really worth the amount of money you could've made by selling it for $5/mo, I wouldn't have brought this up if you weren't trying to give the impression that money is a factor. I interpreted it as "I still wouldn't pay $120 because even though it returns more value than that, it isn't worth that." Edit: (that being said, the one time purchase cost of this for a "lifetime" license is $900, which seems more like a way to push subscriptions than a serious attempt at selling a one time purchase)
- jchw 3y ago
  Yes, but the qualifier is important. >just one reason why developers don't like subscriptions. The truth is that I don't even consider paying for new subscriptions anymore unless there's a good reason for it to be a subscription. I don't want to have to "trust" someone. Will they exist in a year? Will the software get worse and leave me with no choice but to use the "new" version? The test here is that I genuinely don't think I would use software that asked for a $0.05/month subscription either. That's just not how I want to use software. If we want to talk about money, though, then there are still good reasons to not buy a $5/mo subscription. It sounds like it's a good enough deal, and in fact, I might even agree with you. But there is absolutely nothing that guarantees that this will stay the price forever in perpetuity. In fact, even a literal guarantee that enforces this would be worth toilet paper because if it ever came to a head, if the company went bankrupt, it would take down the activation servers and potentially leave you without your software. So playing it from the top, let's say you get a new-fangled productivity software. Everything's great and you're only paying $5/mo. - Then they release a "new" version. The new version breaks all of your workflows and you have to relearn everything. It's now awkward for the way you were using it. - Then they add new features that are only available on a new $20/mo subscription. Turns out $5/mo wasn't really sustainable after all, so they need to adjust the price. Slowly over time, pressure mounts on the grandfathered old accounts to do something that will push them up to a higher tier. - Then it all goes badly: Some venture capital and/or acquisitions later, and the software goes broke. Now what? Well, if you own it, nothing. If you don't, tough luck: All of your workflows are broken again, and you have to go back to doing things the old way. For tools that are core to the stuff I work on, I do not play games like this. I do not care how sure you are that this won't be you. I don't want re-assurances, I want control over it.
erickhill 3y ago
That's how it used to work, back when you could go to MicroCenter and pull a box off a shelf then take it home and hope to hell you had the right drivers installed. But it's also why when I run across a company that shockingly lets you buy their product outright I fully support their efforts and invest in a purchase. It really is cool to sometimes be off WiFi somewhere and use software to your heart's content.

by jchw 3y ago

not_a_shill 3y ago

>you might come to realize it's not really worth the amount of money you could've made by selling it for $5/mo, I wouldn't have brought this up if you weren't trying to give the impression that money is a factor. I interpreted it as "I still wouldn't pay $120 because even though it returns more value than that, it isn't worth that." Edit: (that being said, the one time purchase cost of this for a "lifetime" license is $900, which seems more like a way to push subscriptions than a serious attempt at selling a one time purchase)

jchw 3y ago
Yes, but the qualifier is important. >just one reason why developers don't like subscriptions. The truth is that I don't even consider paying for new subscriptions anymore unless there's a good reason for it to be a subscription. I don't want to have to "trust" someone. Will they exist in a year? Will the software get worse and leave me with no choice but to use the "new" version? The test here is that I genuinely don't think I would use software that asked for a $0.05/month subscription either. That's just not how I want to use software. If we want to talk about money, though, then there are still good reasons to not buy a $5/mo subscription. It sounds like it's a good enough deal, and in fact, I might even agree with you. But there is absolutely nothing that guarantees that this will stay the price forever in perpetuity. In fact, even a literal guarantee that enforces this would be worth toilet paper because if it ever came to a head, if the company went bankrupt, it would take down the activation servers and potentially leave you without your software. So playing it from the top, let's say you get a new-fangled productivity software. Everything's great and you're only paying $5/mo. - Then they release a "new" version. The new version breaks all of your workflows and you have to relearn everything. It's now awkward for the way you were using it. - Then they add new features that are only available on a new $20/mo subscription. Turns out $5/mo wasn't really sustainable after all, so they need to adjust the price. Slowly over time, pressure mounts on the grandfathered old accounts to do something that will push them up to a higher tier. - Then it all goes badly: Some venture capital and/or acquisitions later, and the software goes broke. Now what? Well, if you own it, nothing. If you don't, tough luck: All of your workflows are broken again, and you have to go back to doing things the old way. For tools that are core to the stuff I work on, I do not play games like this. I do not care how sure you are that this won't be you. I don't want re-assurances, I want control over it.

erickhill 3y ago

That's how it used to work, back when you could go to MicroCenter and pull a box off a shelf then take it home and hope to hell you had the right drivers installed. But it's also why when I run across a company that shockingly lets you buy their product outright I fully support their efforts and invest in a purchase. It really is cool to sometimes be off WiFi somewhere and use software to your heart's content.