4 ms·

Maybe I'm just old and grumpy, but the subscription business model just puts me off. Nowadays when I read about some development tool (or just any product), I s

by vodou 3y ago

Maybe I'm just old and grumpy, but the subscription business model just puts me off. Nowadays when I read about some development tool (or just any product), I start with the price page. If there are only subscriptions available I stop reading and go on with my life.

hyperhopper 3y ago
No, totally reasonable not wanting to spend your whole life financially beholden to everybody you've ever done business with. "you will own nothing and be happy" is sadly becoming true, as you have pretty much no Rights for any digital and more of the world is becoming digital. When people ask why I don't like copilot and want a worse alternative when copilot "pays for itself", it's not because I don't want to pay, I just want to buy something and have it.
- mananaysiempre 3y ago
  > I don't like copilot and want a worse alternative [that can be used in perpetuity] There’s replit-code[1], which is pretty much that I think. [1] https://huggingface.co/replit/replit-code-v1_5-3b/ https://huggingface.co/replit/replit-code-v1_5-3b/
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  I just want to buy something and have it. You are buying time. Never pass up an opportunity to do that.
  - funcDropShadow 3y ago
    But, if the subscription provider goes out of business or changes the product, I have to be prepared to spend more time to find an alternative. So, if I want to keep a project long term, I'd avoid subscriptions.
thrtythreeforty 3y ago
A good way to detect these kinds of subscription-only tools is that they all call it "Pricing." (Not "Cost" or "Store" or "Purchase," all of which imply that you might own something after you pay.) I get very disinterested when I see that heading on a webpage now.
MuffinFlavored 3y ago
Devil's advocate: You aren't their target customer then?
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Yeah. Sad fact is a lot of this stuff isn't targeting individual devs. It's targeting small-medium sized companies, who are fine buying productivity so they can create more value than they pay. Maybe a few larger companies as well, because those subscriptions tend to come with support, and larger companies love to throw maintenance to non-employees. But if they cared enough about not having a subscription, they'd make it themselves.
alkonaut 3y ago
Both businesses and developers benefit from subscriptions because it's easily estimated costs, and easily estimated income where you keep contact with the customer. The ones who don't benefit is individuals. I wish more products had one time costs for hobbyists (individuals with zero revenue) while having subscriptions for businesses and commercial. Lots of products have loopholes for education/OSS/etc so adding "hobbyist" doesn't seem like a big difference. And I think it would drive sales. If I use a product at home I'm likely to lobby for buying subscriptions at work.
bob1029 3y ago
I don't mind a subscription model. For me, it represents additional options. Why do I want to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a perpetual license of photoshop when I hardly use it? A 30 day subscription once a year is perfect for me. Even for those of us who are heavy users - can you see the game theory? The provider of your services has to deal with a huge amount of inertia in their product because of the continuous distribution model. The bigger the subscriber base, the more inertia there is. The consequence of this is that you are essentially guaranteed that impacting changes will be delivered slow enough that you or your business can adapt to them. Contrast this with a big bang software upgrade that requires explicit retraining and disruption to ops. Not all subscription products are run this way, but the good ones are. Any product that has a 4 digit number in its name is a bad example. Visual Studio 2022 is not how a subscription model should go. Netflix is.

by vodou 3y ago

hyperhopper 3y ago

No, totally reasonable not wanting to spend your whole life financially beholden to everybody you've ever done business with. "you will own nothing and be happy" is sadly becoming true, as you have pretty much no Rights for any digital and more of the world is becoming digital. When people ask why I don't like copilot and want a worse alternative when copilot "pays for itself", it's not because I don't want to pay, I just want to buy something and have it.

mananaysiempre 3y ago
> I don't like copilot and want a worse alternative [that can be used in perpetuity] There’s replit-code[1], which is pretty much that I think. [1] https://huggingface.co/replit/replit-code-v1_5-3b/ https://huggingface.co/replit/replit-code-v1_5-3b/
CamperBob2 3y ago
I just want to buy something and have it. You are buying time. Never pass up an opportunity to do that.
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  But, if the subscription provider goes out of business or changes the product, I have to be prepared to spend more time to find an alternative. So, if I want to keep a project long term, I'd avoid subscriptions.

thrtythreeforty 3y ago

A good way to detect these kinds of subscription-only tools is that they all call it "Pricing." (Not "Cost" or "Store" or "Purchase," all of which imply that you might own something after you pay.) I get very disinterested when I see that heading on a webpage now.

MuffinFlavored 3y ago

Devil's advocate: You aren't their target customer then?

johnnyanmac 3y ago
Yeah. Sad fact is a lot of this stuff isn't targeting individual devs. It's targeting small-medium sized companies, who are fine buying productivity so they can create more value than they pay. Maybe a few larger companies as well, because those subscriptions tend to come with support, and larger companies love to throw maintenance to non-employees. But if they cared enough about not having a subscription, they'd make it themselves.

alkonaut 3y ago

Both businesses and developers benefit from subscriptions because it's easily estimated costs, and easily estimated income where you keep contact with the customer. The ones who don't benefit is individuals. I wish more products had one time costs for hobbyists (individuals with zero revenue) while having subscriptions for businesses and commercial. Lots of products have loopholes for education/OSS/etc so adding "hobbyist" doesn't seem like a big difference. And I think it would drive sales. If I use a product at home I'm likely to lobby for buying subscriptions at work.

bob1029 3y ago

I don't mind a subscription model. For me, it represents additional options. Why do I want to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a perpetual license of photoshop when I hardly use it? A 30 day subscription once a year is perfect for me. Even for those of us who are heavy users - can you see the game theory? The provider of your services has to deal with a huge amount of inertia in their product because of the continuous distribution model. The bigger the subscriber base, the more inertia there is. The consequence of this is that you are essentially guaranteed that impacting changes will be delivered slow enough that you or your business can adapt to them. Contrast this with a big bang software upgrade that requires explicit retraining and disruption to ops. Not all subscription products are run this way, but the good ones are. Any product that has a 4 digit number in its name is a bad example. Visual Studio 2022 is not how a subscription model should go. Netflix is.