5 ms·

...in exchange for data and ads, and money. That's the trick though, SaaS just keeps you hostage to the vendor and they can extract more value out of you. Ther

...in exchange for data and ads, and money. That's the trick though, SaaS just keeps you hostage to the vendor and they can extract more value out of you. There are only two ways out of this: 1. The Internet becomes dangerous and unreliable for some reason, and we need to go back to treating software as a product for sale, rather than service for rent. 2. Regulation. Neither way is great. It suggests distress in the system and forcing behaviors which are not natural to it. On the other hand, what's natural to this system we've created is apparently massive centralization in the hands of corporations, and whenever anything in this network of dependencies breaks, the whole thing falls apart like a house of cards.

dec0dedab0de 3y ago
The third way out is to simply not participate. If something is SaaS only I pretend it doesn't exist.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> SaaS just keeps you hostage to the vendor and they can extract more value out of you It was also a solution to the problem of updates. You can't pay for continuous improvement with a traditional software product.
- zer8k 3y ago
  I never had problem paying a company for patches. The problem companies had would be someone buying their software and then never buying updates. That's a product problem not a system problem. SaaS keeps the consumer captive in a permanent rental situation. The "it gives the customers a better experience" non-sense is false. One of the best case studies on this is Jetbrains. Sublime Text is still around too. It works. It just doesn't sell very well to SV shareholders. It'd be a lot easier if they just said "we're greedy assholes". Since that's what it actually is. Software had to be made right the first time when released on CD. Updates were paid and it was okay because they were usually major improvements. There's been a whole lot of propaganda made to make SaaS seem like a net win for the consumer but this is by-and-large not the case.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > I never had problem paying a company for patches But you had to decide to pay. Many did not. Those are transaction costs. As is downloading and installing software, something software running on a server and delivered through a browser doesn't require. Those ongoing costs must be paid for with ads or subscription revenue. > Software had to be made right the first time when released on CD But it never was. Particularly in a networked world. Perfect is the enemy of good. SaaS isn't a fit for all products. Some software can be written once and never updated. Most cannot, and for that, SaaS is a better business model fit.
    - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
      > But you had to decide to pay. Many did not. Many did not, when the updates did not provide value. The false belief you seem to rely on here is that if companies get regular stream of revenue, they'll be compelled to work on updates. Why? They get the revenue anyway, they don't have to work on updates. They can in fact stop completely working on updates, except to match competitors, when their products get popular. But even that's not much of a problem when you have a closed file format, like say Adobe does with PSD.
    - zer8k 3y ago
      I can tell you having worked at a majority SaaS-type of companies my entire career the amount of "updates" we put out is as frequent, or less, than the previous model. Despite working in the industry (it's impossible to avoid as you likely know) I encourage nearly everyone I know to find other options before paying for software subscriptions. It's about money. It's not about updates. It's taking away ownership from people in order to be able to drive up profits. Consider how normal software sales works. It's the same way. You lease enterprise-grade software to a company. Every year, as if by magic, something comes up and "prices need to increase". They just hacked off a zero or two and adapted this price model to the consumer. I fail to see how SaaS is not another variation of "Embrace, extend, extinguish" where the entrapment phase of extinguish is taken to it's natural conclusion: no ownership. Worse, you pay 5, 10, 20 times as much over time. Many companies capitalize on the subscription being priced such that you forget about it. Also known as the gym model. The only acceptable SaaS model to me is JetBrain's. You pay a subscription and at the end of that term you own that version of the software permanently. You may continue to pay (because you find the product valuable) but you are not required to. At the end, you still own what you paid for. The truth is, SaaS provides very little value to people for what they pay. An example: in 5 years you would've paid for a copy of AutoCAD inventor in full + some just leasing the worse Fusion360 over the same time period. If you are a sucker and buy into Inventor's SaaS pricing you would've paid for 5-8 copies at the previous model in the same time period. That type of capture is called theft in other modalities. 9/10 people would've never needed to pay for all the extra crap they saddle on in order to make the price seem "reasonable". They exist solely because the can extort (not capitalize) on the moat they have. One day we'll look at this model of owning nothing as one of the greatest failings of our society. It's probably an unpopular opinion here at HN but SaaS is an awful anti-consumer model. We can hope that somehow we define what "providing sufficient utility" means and start cracking down on this.
- zuppy 3y ago
  how is that a problem for the consumer? just provide paid updates for the next major version. who wants it, pays for it. i give the example of Path Finder, which is a Finder replacement for mac. there’s not much to improve there, after a while it became bloated. they went with subscriptions after many years of owning the software (and rolled back that later with an alternative after the backslash). i don’t use anything that came in the last few years, except the compatibility with the latest os. maybe it’s time to stop this madness and try to make every software do anything and extract money from the consumer for things that are really not needed (yes, i understand this is my opinion but i bet you all have a similar example).
  - zer8k 3y ago
    > maybe it’s time to stop this madness and try to make every software do anything and extract money from the consumer for things that are really not needed Or put on your entrepreneur cap and realize this is an opportunity.
    - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
      It's not, because if you try to fight an empire that has billions under its belt, you'll find out you can't compete. They're lazy when not provoked, but can get vicious when you show up. It's kind of like a lion. Sleeps most of the time. But don't get in its way.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  As a counterpoint, subscription means you pay even if the updates are subpar. So in fact subscription encourages lack of updates. Would you work hard if your boss can't fire you? With the traditional system the vendor has to work hard to put up an update that's worth it, and then you pay for it. Adobe were clearly struggling to provide good updates to their software for years, creators were always kidding they just keep tweaking the UI skin because they're out of ideas, so there's no point buying the new updates. So when Adobe went subscription-only, they did it under the pretense they'll be able to ship new exciting features every month. And of course... in retrospect they didn't. In fact their updates are even more minor than before.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  If you cannot convince people to buy v2, then clearly the updates aren't worth the cost of making them. Except for security upgrades, I feel like most software rapidly hits a point where the upgrades aren't worth it.

dec0dedab0de 3y ago

The third way out is to simply not participate. If something is SaaS only I pretend it doesn't exist.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> SaaS just keeps you hostage to the vendor and they can extract more value out of you It was also a solution to the problem of updates. You can't pay for continuous improvement with a traditional software product.

zer8k 3y ago
I never had problem paying a company for patches. The problem companies had would be someone buying their software and then never buying updates. That's a product problem not a system problem. SaaS keeps the consumer captive in a permanent rental situation. The "it gives the customers a better experience" non-sense is false. One of the best case studies on this is Jetbrains. Sublime Text is still around too. It works. It just doesn't sell very well to SV shareholders. It'd be a lot easier if they just said "we're greedy assholes". Since that's what it actually is. Software had to be made right the first time when released on CD. Updates were paid and it was okay because they were usually major improvements. There's been a whole lot of propaganda made to make SaaS seem like a net win for the consumer but this is by-and-large not the case.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I never had problem paying a company for patches But you had to decide to pay. Many did not. Those are transaction costs. As is downloading and installing software, something software running on a server and delivered through a browser doesn't require. Those ongoing costs must be paid for with ads or subscription revenue. > Software had to be made right the first time when released on CD But it never was. Particularly in a networked world. Perfect is the enemy of good. SaaS isn't a fit for all products. Some software can be written once and never updated. Most cannot, and for that, SaaS is a better business model fit.
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    > But you had to decide to pay. Many did not. Many did not, when the updates did not provide value. The false belief you seem to rely on here is that if companies get regular stream of revenue, they'll be compelled to work on updates. Why? They get the revenue anyway, they don't have to work on updates. They can in fact stop completely working on updates, except to match competitors, when their products get popular. But even that's not much of a problem when you have a closed file format, like say Adobe does with PSD.
  - zer8k 3y ago
    I can tell you having worked at a majority SaaS-type of companies my entire career the amount of "updates" we put out is as frequent, or less, than the previous model. Despite working in the industry (it's impossible to avoid as you likely know) I encourage nearly everyone I know to find other options before paying for software subscriptions. It's about money. It's not about updates. It's taking away ownership from people in order to be able to drive up profits. Consider how normal software sales works. It's the same way. You lease enterprise-grade software to a company. Every year, as if by magic, something comes up and "prices need to increase". They just hacked off a zero or two and adapted this price model to the consumer. I fail to see how SaaS is not another variation of "Embrace, extend, extinguish" where the entrapment phase of extinguish is taken to it's natural conclusion: no ownership. Worse, you pay 5, 10, 20 times as much over time. Many companies capitalize on the subscription being priced such that you forget about it. Also known as the gym model. The only acceptable SaaS model to me is JetBrain's. You pay a subscription and at the end of that term you own that version of the software permanently. You may continue to pay (because you find the product valuable) but you are not required to. At the end, you still own what you paid for. The truth is, SaaS provides very little value to people for what they pay. An example: in 5 years you would've paid for a copy of AutoCAD inventor in full + some just leasing the worse Fusion360 over the same time period. If you are a sucker and buy into Inventor's SaaS pricing you would've paid for 5-8 copies at the previous model in the same time period. That type of capture is called theft in other modalities. 9/10 people would've never needed to pay for all the extra crap they saddle on in order to make the price seem "reasonable". They exist solely because the can extort (not capitalize) on the moat they have. One day we'll look at this model of owning nothing as one of the greatest failings of our society. It's probably an unpopular opinion here at HN but SaaS is an awful anti-consumer model. We can hope that somehow we define what "providing sufficient utility" means and start cracking down on this.
zuppy 3y ago
how is that a problem for the consumer? just provide paid updates for the next major version. who wants it, pays for it. i give the example of Path Finder, which is a Finder replacement for mac. there’s not much to improve there, after a while it became bloated. they went with subscriptions after many years of owning the software (and rolled back that later with an alternative after the backslash). i don’t use anything that came in the last few years, except the compatibility with the latest os. maybe it’s time to stop this madness and try to make every software do anything and extract money from the consumer for things that are really not needed (yes, i understand this is my opinion but i bet you all have a similar example).
- zer8k 3y ago
  > maybe it’s time to stop this madness and try to make every software do anything and extract money from the consumer for things that are really not needed Or put on your entrepreneur cap and realize this is an opportunity.
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    It's not, because if you try to fight an empire that has billions under its belt, you'll find out you can't compete. They're lazy when not provoked, but can get vicious when you show up. It's kind of like a lion. Sleeps most of the time. But don't get in its way.
3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
As a counterpoint, subscription means you pay even if the updates are subpar. So in fact subscription encourages lack of updates. Would you work hard if your boss can't fire you? With the traditional system the vendor has to work hard to put up an update that's worth it, and then you pay for it. Adobe were clearly struggling to provide good updates to their software for years, creators were always kidding they just keep tweaking the UI skin because they're out of ideas, so there's no point buying the new updates. So when Adobe went subscription-only, they did it under the pretense they'll be able to ship new exciting features every month. And of course... in retrospect they didn't. In fact their updates are even more minor than before.
HWR_14 3y ago
If you cannot convince people to buy v2, then clearly the updates aren't worth the cost of making them. Except for security upgrades, I feel like most software rapidly hits a point where the upgrades aren't worth it.