6 ms·

Sounds good, but I mean, it's just pros and cons with the SaaS model, or with the pay-once... Before SaaS there used to be a massive pool of native apps, doing

Sounds good, but I mean, it's just pros and cons with the SaaS model, or with the pay-once... Before SaaS there used to be a massive pool of native apps, doing all kinds of different things... You indeed paid your license and lived with the product until the next major version, but there was little chance to just use something for a month or two, so the prices were higher. With SaaS you do end up renting stuff all over the place, and never owning anything, but the prices are more affordable... Think about an AutoCAD license, that shit is privative for a hobbyist... With SaaS you can in fact afford something to begin with.

eldaisfish 3y ago
This doesn’t address a major gripe with the subscription model - taking away the option to purchase software outright. Were both to exist, we would not be having this discussion. In reality, corporations are driven by greed and greed pushed the subscription model. For some situations, subscriptions work well - music is one. For others, it is terrible. CAD software is a great example especially at larger orgs. Why should software be a recurring cost in the name of development and support?
- registeredcorn 3y ago
  I agree with the majority of what you wrote, but I'm utterly confused by this statement > For some situations, subscriptions work well - music is one. I've only ever purchased albums. Why in the world would I pay a monthly fee for something I presumably want to listen for for the rest of my life? 10-15$ for a one time purchase is far preferable to a monthly fee of nearly the same. I'm also weary of the idea of the services that have the right to stream music from labels X, Y, and Z suddenly pulling out, cutting off my access to the albums from artists I want to listen to at any given time. I hope none of that comes off sounding "snobby" or whatever, I just don't understand how subscribing to listen to music is adventitious. Is it just not having to transfer music from the computer to your devices? Or is there something deeper I'm not getting?
  - voz_ 3y ago
    Spotify is, let’s say, $120 a year. After 10 years, let’s say $1200. If an album has 5 songs, and an album costs $12.00 (dunno, middle of your range plus easy math), you can buy 100 albums in that time. 500 songs. After 500 songs for 10 years, your model costs more and offers no value (in fact, it’s less convenient for a dozen reasons) I don’t know about you, but I listen to way more than 500 songs… a year. Let alone a decade.
    - sanitycheck 3y ago
      Except with Spotify the songs can go away, so it's not necessarily equivalent - you don't get access to the same music as long as you're subscribed, you get access to whatever Spotify is currently serving up. I was an early Spotify user and that annoyed me enough to stop and go back to buying music instead. BTW, albums usually have more than 5 songs.
      - voz_ 3y ago
        I've never had a song I like go away, is this a real issue?
        sanitycheck 3y ago
        Are you sure? If you've got playlists you haven't touched for a few years, take a look and you may discover they're shorter than you remember. Maybe they've improved in recent years, and maybe it depends on the music/artists involved.
    - k3lsi3r 3y ago
      Not OP but I agree with his sentiment. Maybe I'm not as "into music" as some people, but I do like finding new artists and songs, though probably only to the tune of 1-5 new artists a year and I buy on average about 5 new albums a year. It's cheaper and better for me to own the stuff I want to listen to than sign up for a subscription in perpetuity.
    - registeredcorn 3y ago
- pb7 3y ago
  Funny that you talk about greed when one of the reasons everything went the way of subscriptions is because of piracy. Even here and today, people defend pirating movies when you can rent one for a few bucks in 4K HDR with Dolby. Nothing but greed by people making top 1%-10%ile incomes.
  - sosodev 3y ago
    I get pretty annoyed paying $4 to rent a movie that was released 40 years ago. It used to be that I could pay $4 to own a copy of that movie I picked up out of the bargain bin. I still pay it though because I prefer to support companies that at least make their media available.
    - gremlinsinc 3y ago
      or you'd pay $4 for new releases, $1.88 for older movies. We'd maybe rent a new release if it was a really good one or wait 6 to 8 months. I honestly kind of miss those days, I mean I love Netflix and chill like the next guy, usually without the chill cause we have toddlers and no energy, but it was like an event. My aunt or grandma would be like hey let's get a movie and I'd be like yay! it's a blockbuster night! We'd often get cassanos pizza and/or popcorn and treats and watch the main movie, and the cheap ones the next day. I kinda miss libraries too, but no clue how any programmer could work without Google, and six months in maybe gpt4, etc...
  - amatecha 3y ago
    No, the invention of subscription models is not because of piracy. It's because you can keep extracting money from customers "forever", rather than just once, and continue funding your business instead of having large gaps of reduced revenue when a product has not been recently released. A moment of consideration easily reveals that SaaS was inevitable with cheap hosting/networking and readily-available worldwide payment processors. Sources which are speaking solely about the increase in revenue (and related benefits) and not a peep about piracy: https://hbr.org/2023/04/the-rebirth-of-software-as-a-service https://hbr.org/2023/04/the-rebirth-of-software-as-a-service https://bebusinessed.com/history/the-history-of-saas/ https://bebusinessed.com/history/the-history-of-saas/ https://smartbear.com/blog/the-pre-history-of-software-as-a-service/ https://smartbear.com/blog/the-pre-history-of-software-as-a-... https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/history-of-saas/ https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/history-of-saas/
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > CAD software is a great example especially at larger orgs. Why should software be a recurring cost in the name of development and support? But it always has been. Every larger org has always wound up purchasing upgrades. Not only for new features, but because professional tools often include all sorts of interoperability plugins and you need the upgraded ones to interact with other newer third-party products. Maybe an individual hobbyist can get away with not upgrading, but upgrades have always been just a recurring cost for larger orgs.

eldaisfish 3y ago

This doesn’t address a major gripe with the subscription model - taking away the option to purchase software outright. Were both to exist, we would not be having this discussion. In reality, corporations are driven by greed and greed pushed the subscription model. For some situations, subscriptions work well - music is one. For others, it is terrible. CAD software is a great example especially at larger orgs. Why should software be a recurring cost in the name of development and support?

registeredcorn 3y ago
I agree with the majority of what you wrote, but I'm utterly confused by this statement > For some situations, subscriptions work well - music is one. I've only ever purchased albums. Why in the world would I pay a monthly fee for something I presumably want to listen for for the rest of my life? 10-15$ for a one time purchase is far preferable to a monthly fee of nearly the same. I'm also weary of the idea of the services that have the right to stream music from labels X, Y, and Z suddenly pulling out, cutting off my access to the albums from artists I want to listen to at any given time. I hope none of that comes off sounding "snobby" or whatever, I just don't understand how subscribing to listen to music is adventitious. Is it just not having to transfer music from the computer to your devices? Or is there something deeper I'm not getting?
- voz_ 3y ago
  Spotify is, let’s say, $120 a year. After 10 years, let’s say $1200. If an album has 5 songs, and an album costs $12.00 (dunno, middle of your range plus easy math), you can buy 100 albums in that time. 500 songs. After 500 songs for 10 years, your model costs more and offers no value (in fact, it’s less convenient for a dozen reasons) I don’t know about you, but I listen to way more than 500 songs… a year. Let alone a decade.
  - sanitycheck 3y ago
    Except with Spotify the songs can go away, so it's not necessarily equivalent - you don't get access to the same music as long as you're subscribed, you get access to whatever Spotify is currently serving up. I was an early Spotify user and that annoyed me enough to stop and go back to buying music instead. BTW, albums usually have more than 5 songs.
    - voz_ 3y ago
      I've never had a song I like go away, is this a real issue?
      - sanitycheck 3y ago
        Are you sure? If you've got playlists you haven't touched for a few years, take a look and you may discover they're shorter than you remember. Maybe they've improved in recent years, and maybe it depends on the music/artists involved.
  - k3lsi3r 3y ago
    Not OP but I agree with his sentiment. Maybe I'm not as "into music" as some people, but I do like finding new artists and songs, though probably only to the tune of 1-5 new artists a year and I buy on average about 5 new albums a year. It's cheaper and better for me to own the stuff I want to listen to than sign up for a subscription in perpetuity.
  - registeredcorn 3y ago
pb7 3y ago
Funny that you talk about greed when one of the reasons everything went the way of subscriptions is because of piracy. Even here and today, people defend pirating movies when you can rent one for a few bucks in 4K HDR with Dolby. Nothing but greed by people making top 1%-10%ile incomes.
- sosodev 3y ago
  I get pretty annoyed paying $4 to rent a movie that was released 40 years ago. It used to be that I could pay $4 to own a copy of that movie I picked up out of the bargain bin. I still pay it though because I prefer to support companies that at least make their media available.
  - gremlinsinc 3y ago
    or you'd pay $4 for new releases, $1.88 for older movies. We'd maybe rent a new release if it was a really good one or wait 6 to 8 months. I honestly kind of miss those days, I mean I love Netflix and chill like the next guy, usually without the chill cause we have toddlers and no energy, but it was like an event. My aunt or grandma would be like hey let's get a movie and I'd be like yay! it's a blockbuster night! We'd often get cassanos pizza and/or popcorn and treats and watch the main movie, and the cheap ones the next day. I kinda miss libraries too, but no clue how any programmer could work without Google, and six months in maybe gpt4, etc...
- amatecha 3y ago
  No, the invention of subscription models is not because of piracy. It's because you can keep extracting money from customers "forever", rather than just once, and continue funding your business instead of having large gaps of reduced revenue when a product has not been recently released. A moment of consideration easily reveals that SaaS was inevitable with cheap hosting/networking and readily-available worldwide payment processors. Sources which are speaking solely about the increase in revenue (and related benefits) and not a peep about piracy: https://hbr.org/2023/04/the-rebirth-of-software-as-a-service https://hbr.org/2023/04/the-rebirth-of-software-as-a-service https://bebusinessed.com/history/the-history-of-saas/ https://bebusinessed.com/history/the-history-of-saas/ https://smartbear.com/blog/the-pre-history-of-software-as-a-service/ https://smartbear.com/blog/the-pre-history-of-software-as-a-... https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/history-of-saas/ https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/history-of-saas/
crazygringo 3y ago
> CAD software is a great example especially at larger orgs. Why should software be a recurring cost in the name of development and support? But it always has been. Every larger org has always wound up purchasing upgrades. Not only for new features, but because professional tools often include all sorts of interoperability plugins and you need the upgraded ones to interact with other newer third-party products. Maybe an individual hobbyist can get away with not upgrading, but upgrades have always been just a recurring cost for larger orgs.