6 ms·

Personally, in the past I never had a problem with paying a reasonable price for software if I end up “owning” it as the result of the payment, allowing me to u

Personally, in the past I never had a problem with paying a reasonable price for software if I end up “owning” it as the result of the payment, allowing me to use it in perpetuity. I especially liked some products that came with “lifetime updates”, eg FL Studio, where a purchase entitles you to future updates providing bug fixes and new features free of charge. I also like Jetbrains subscription model that allows me to use the current version forever even if I stop paying subscription. But as the time went on - more and more restrictions were put on the purchase: can’t install on multiple computers in a household, the key cannot be reused when reinstalling, immediate absolution when continuous operation requires paid updates, and finally - full on subscriptions that don’t result in ownership. As the result of all this my desire to buy software ran out.

EvanAnderson 3y ago
I’d be fine with just “let me run the software in perpetuity”, ideally without automated updates. Software that matters enough for me to pay for is going to become part of my workflow, and a tool in my toolbox. I don’t want my tools disappearing or changing arbitrarily. I’ve always seen software development and maintenance as a service. The idea of free lifetime updates always struck me as unsustainable. Having a reasonable bug-fix and free update lifetime for a given version doesn’t strike me as unfair. A company offering free lifetime updates raises a red flag in my mind re: their long-term viability.
- VincentEvans 3y ago
  In case of FL Studio - there’s a core product that remains free and receives updates, and there various add-ons and content that you can pay for if you choose to. It’s not all that different to how some game producers continue to update and bug-fix the game, as well as on occasion introduce new features - while releasing expansions that you need to pay for if you want to play it. Example - Diablo 3 which saw 3 or 4 expansions since it was released a decade or so ago. Or Fallout 4. That model obviously works for some - and the makers of FL Studio celebrated their 20th anniversary a while ago. One of the benefits to them - is that they don’t need to support old versions of their software, all customers have the latest version available to them free of charge.
api 3y ago
Rant: If you let people install the software easily, they'll just pirate and won't buy the software. If you lock things down you'll irritate people and they won't buy the software. If you make it open source they'll just build it themselves and won't buy the software. If you make it open source with a license that restricts commercial use (or is even too copyleft e.g. AGPL) people will bash you for having a "non-free license" and won't buy the software. There's really only one method that's working broadly: SaaS. The cloud is the ultimate DRM. You don't even give people the binaries or their own data. You keep it in the cloud and charge rent. SaaS works. People won't buy software that they can run themselves, but they'll rent it and give up all privacy and control of their own data. SaaS even lets you pretend to be open source by "supporting open source" (tossing a few bucks in sponsorships or employing one or two open source authors) or having an open source client for a closed source SaaS platform. Nobody seems to care about that. They just look at the license on the source, not the holistic picture of the ecosystem that it works within. At the same time you can build your SaaS on the shoulders of open source, using all those dumb hippies as free labor. I love making software but I absolutely despise the way this market works. It's completely perverse. It's hard to make money in software by doing things to make peoples' lives better or increase their freedom. It's easy to make money with rent extraction schemes, addictionware, dark patterns, and outright scams. It's like this market is full of people who want to be screwed and refuse to pay for anything that doesn't screw them. The reality is that we painted ourselves into a corner with free-as-in-beer, "information wants to be free," etc. without considering how incentives work in large systems. You get what you incentivize. By making anything that is pro-user and pro-human free (as in beer) and educating the customer base to expect it to be free, you remove all incentive and resource base for the development of that kind of software. The only incentives left are for things that make the world a worse place. The best way to make money is to con, dark-pattern, lock in, addict, surveil, or outright scam the user. I've spent years trying to build useful software. I'm not doing too bad. I've somehow made it work. But with the same knowledge that underlies my current work (cryptography, distributed systems, network protocols, infosec) I could have become incredibly rich scamming people in cryptocurrency or doing dozens of other shady-but-not-illegal (or illegal-but-hard-to-prosecute) things. Half the time I'm proud of not doing those things. The other half the time I feel like a big fat sucker.
- 3y ago
auggierose 3y ago
Jetbrains doesn't allow you to use the current version forever if you stop paying. It allows you to use the version YOU CURRENTLY FULLY PAID FOR, which is a year old version. That's a very clever trick, and also shows that in the end it's really just about providing a feel-good factor.
- VincentEvans 3y ago
  I misused the word “current” to mean the version as of the time of the purchase. I don’t consider it a trick at all and am not sure why being able using something that was perfectly usable when you bought it is “a trick” as soon as a newer version of that thing comes out?
  - auggierose 3y ago
    I see you still don't get how it works. There are two options: You buy it outright. Then this version belongs to you, and there are no subscriptions. Or, you buy a subscription. After 12 months, you are using the current version of Jetbrains, and the version from 12 MONTHS AGO belongs to you forever. With a subscription, the version belonging to you will always be 12 months older than the current one you are using right now. Most people don't seem to understand that, do the subscription, and as they never understood what they really signed up for, are happy. It's not even unethical by Jetbrains, it's perfectly fine and OK. But it IS a clever trick.

EvanAnderson 3y ago

I’d be fine with just “let me run the software in perpetuity”, ideally without automated updates. Software that matters enough for me to pay for is going to become part of my workflow, and a tool in my toolbox. I don’t want my tools disappearing or changing arbitrarily. I’ve always seen software development and maintenance as a service. The idea of free lifetime updates always struck me as unsustainable. Having a reasonable bug-fix and free update lifetime for a given version doesn’t strike me as unfair. A company offering free lifetime updates raises a red flag in my mind re: their long-term viability.

VincentEvans 3y ago
In case of FL Studio - there’s a core product that remains free and receives updates, and there various add-ons and content that you can pay for if you choose to. It’s not all that different to how some game producers continue to update and bug-fix the game, as well as on occasion introduce new features - while releasing expansions that you need to pay for if you want to play it. Example - Diablo 3 which saw 3 or 4 expansions since it was released a decade or so ago. Or Fallout 4. That model obviously works for some - and the makers of FL Studio celebrated their 20th anniversary a while ago. One of the benefits to them - is that they don’t need to support old versions of their software, all customers have the latest version available to them free of charge.

api 3y ago

Rant: If you let people install the software easily, they'll just pirate and won't buy the software. If you lock things down you'll irritate people and they won't buy the software. If you make it open source they'll just build it themselves and won't buy the software. If you make it open source with a license that restricts commercial use (or is even too copyleft e.g. AGPL) people will bash you for having a "non-free license" and won't buy the software. There's really only one method that's working broadly: SaaS. The cloud is the ultimate DRM. You don't even give people the binaries or their own data. You keep it in the cloud and charge rent. SaaS works. People won't buy software that they can run themselves, but they'll rent it and give up all privacy and control of their own data. SaaS even lets you pretend to be open source by "supporting open source" (tossing a few bucks in sponsorships or employing one or two open source authors) or having an open source client for a closed source SaaS platform. Nobody seems to care about that. They just look at the license on the source, not the holistic picture of the ecosystem that it works within. At the same time you can build your SaaS on the shoulders of open source, using all those dumb hippies as free labor. I love making software but I absolutely despise the way this market works. It's completely perverse. It's hard to make money in software by doing things to make peoples' lives better or increase their freedom. It's easy to make money with rent extraction schemes, addictionware, dark patterns, and outright scams. It's like this market is full of people who want to be screwed and refuse to pay for anything that doesn't screw them. The reality is that we painted ourselves into a corner with free-as-in-beer, "information wants to be free," etc. without considering how incentives work in large systems. You get what you incentivize. By making anything that is pro-user and pro-human free (as in beer) and educating the customer base to expect it to be free, you remove all incentive and resource base for the development of that kind of software. The only incentives left are for things that make the world a worse place. The best way to make money is to con, dark-pattern, lock in, addict, surveil, or outright scam the user. I've spent years trying to build useful software. I'm not doing too bad. I've somehow made it work. But with the same knowledge that underlies my current work (cryptography, distributed systems, network protocols, infosec) I could have become incredibly rich scamming people in cryptocurrency or doing dozens of other shady-but-not-illegal (or illegal-but-hard-to-prosecute) things. Half the time I'm proud of not doing those things. The other half the time I feel like a big fat sucker.

3y ago

auggierose 3y ago

Jetbrains doesn't allow you to use the current version forever if you stop paying. It allows you to use the version YOU CURRENTLY FULLY PAID FOR, which is a year old version. That's a very clever trick, and also shows that in the end it's really just about providing a feel-good factor.

VincentEvans 3y ago
I misused the word “current” to mean the version as of the time of the purchase. I don’t consider it a trick at all and am not sure why being able using something that was perfectly usable when you bought it is “a trick” as soon as a newer version of that thing comes out?
- auggierose 3y ago
  I see you still don't get how it works. There are two options: You buy it outright. Then this version belongs to you, and there are no subscriptions. Or, you buy a subscription. After 12 months, you are using the current version of Jetbrains, and the version from 12 MONTHS AGO belongs to you forever. With a subscription, the version belonging to you will always be 12 months older than the current one you are using right now. Most people don't seem to understand that, do the subscription, and as they never understood what they really signed up for, are happy. It's not even unethical by Jetbrains, it's perfectly fine and OK. But it IS a clever trick.