3 ms·

I don't entirely agree with going after SaaS as an addictive "thing". SaaS solved the issue of: I want continually improved and supported software, but I don't

I don't entirely agree with going after SaaS as an addictive "thing". SaaS solved the issue of: I want continually improved and supported software, but I don't want to pay $5000 (or whatever fee makes sense) upfront for it. I used to work for a CD / DVD / Blu ray mastering company that powered pretty much every major movie release (mastering), and every consumer CD burner (drivers). Meanwhile, people call in complaining that X is broken, on a version we released 6 years ago and no longer maintain. Since we had to float 2 years of revenue per customer, a license was around $3000, meaning smaller shops hated upgrading... To claim that now that they're familiar with our software, all their processes use it, that they're "addicted" is quite the leap.

AlexandrB 3y ago
I think this makes a ton of sense for corporate customers and specialized, expensive software packages, but the model has trickled down to weather apps and text editors. Software that didn't/wouldn't cost more than ~$50 in an "up front purchase" model, but now requires an ongoing subscription to keep using. Many apps using a SaaS business model also don't like to let you manage your own data and insist or at least nudge you towards storing data in their cloud - which locks you in a lot more.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  In addition, B2C subscription software incentivizes making the customer dependent upon your software. If I pay up-front for software, the business is agnostic as to how much or little I use the software. If I subscribe to a SaaS service, they are incentivized to manipulate me to use the software more.
  - steveklabnik 3y ago
    > B2C subscription software incentivizes making the customer dependent upon your software. This is one of the points made in the video, explicitly.
- gruez 3y ago
  >but the model has trickled down to weather apps and text editors. Software that didn't/wouldn't cost more than ~$50 in an "up front purchase" model, but now requires an ongoing subscription to keep using. How about using a free text editor or weather app instead? Feels weird to complain about subscription models when there's free first party weather apps for ios and android, and most of the popular text editors are free.
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    They're just examples of wider issues - not sure why you're getting hung up on the examples.
    - theamk 3y ago
      No, I think that's exactly the point. I've heard this many of times: "I want to use X but it is subscription-only! .. What about Y, it does the same? ... Y is not polished enough for me, it is missing (some totally optional feature)" I am sure there are some cases where subscription is the only options, but I bet those are super rare. A lot of times when people complain about subscriptions, they are themselves subscribing to totally optional things like games and weather app and text editors.
      - phone8675309 3y ago
        My brother in Christ, the video itself gives other examples than text editors and games and weather apps! The big one is Adobe and the lockin using Adobe products. I wouldn't say there is an industry standard replacement for Photoshop with the features people need, that is interoperable with others using Photoshop, and without a subscription fee otherwise people would already be using it!
        gruez 3y ago
        > My brother in Christ, the video itself gives other examples than text editors and games and weather apps! And if you read my or the parent's comment more carefully, you'd see that we're not dismissing concerns for all subscription software, only pointing out that weather apps and text editors are particularly bad examples. It's like making a rant about companies are profiteering, and using sports cars as examples. True, the fact that profiteering in sports cars can be justified doesn't mean that profiteering in other parts of the economy doesn't exist, but it's fair to point out how bad of an example it is.
Yujf 3y ago
I agree that in a way it makes sense for a lot of software. But as a consumer who just wants something to use once in a while it does not make any sense. It just feels like you are being milked. I think there are 2 issues. The first is that if you dont use a piece of software very often it does not make sense to have the subscription because it is super expensive compared to the value you get. The second issue is that you make your workflow depended on something and that gives them so much pricing power and you can't stop paying because it would be a lot of work to move to something else. Music streaming is a good model for me because I like to listen to lots of different music and if I bought all of it it would be much more expensive. I also don't feel locked in because I backup my playlists and listening history so if spotify dissappeared tomorrow I still have everything and just move to somrthing else. But I don't like netflix because I am not big on tv shows and I just want to watch one show every couple months.
- dingnuts 3y ago
  the problem with music streaming is that music randomly disappears from the sites! I remember the first time I tried to queue up an album on Spotify and it was just gone. Heartbreaking. Nope, not worth it. Bandcamp lets you listen to albums before you buy them, and once you own them, you have the files and they can't just disappear. not to mention that you can't even hear music on streaming sites that has unauthorized samples in it, which is a sort of absurd and related topic (that it's illegal to make some kinds of art) but practically speaking I just want to listen to Neil Cicierega in the same place as everything else.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Seconded (though I subscribe to Netflix and not Spotify). As a prelude, I should note that I strongly prefer listening to albums over singles, which puts me in a minority, so the following probably doesn't apply to you: I've been purchasing music since the early 90s, and specifically on CDs since the mid 90s. Currently one month of Spotify costs about the same as a new album, and 2-10 used albums, depending on what sort of deal I can get. In a counterfactual world in which Spotify existed in 1995, Let's say I purchased mostly new albums for an average of 1.5 albums[1] per month instead of paying for Spotify. I would end up with 342 albums, which is a pretty decent variety. I just checked my library, and I don't own quite that many. Part of this is due to how @#$# expensive CDs were when I was at my poorest[2] 1: This is probably low, because I might pick up 10 albums for $10 in one visit to a flea-market or via a craigslist find, while I'm not going to go on a triple-digit new-CD binge. 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_price_fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_price_fixing
eesmith 3y ago
At https://youtu.be/XuTQbOo3Y30?t=1391 https://youtu.be/XuTQbOo3Y30?t=1391 the speaker agrees with you: "Particularly for freelancers and small businesses then, the appeal to this model is actually pretty clear. Previously, access to such software required substantial investment. But now it was relatively manageable overhead which could be paid for over time." The counter-argument, at https://youtu.be/XuTQbOo3Y30?t=1433 https://youtu.be/XuTQbOo3Y30?t=1433, is that once you have a large set of documents in a proprietary format (in the Adobe example) and built-up muscle memory then you "addicted" in the sense you are dependent on the service and can't easily switch without a lot of effort, and the only option is to go cold-turkey.
alright2565 3y ago
> SaaS solved the issue of: I want continually improved and supported software, but I don't want to pay $5000 (or whatever fee makes sense) upfront for it. Jetbrains solved this is in an even better and consumer-friendly way: - You buy the software on a recurring subscription and always get the latest version - If you stop your subscription, you can continue using a year-old version of the software forever This aligns everyone's incentives! Jetbrains is incentivized to invest in R&D, because they don't want customers to decide the older version is fine and not continue their subscription. The customers know that regardless of what happens, they will always have access to the software they need.
8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
Same with cheap printers being a form of addiction creation, that's a real stretch of the analogy. It's a business model where most of the charges are backloaded, that's it.

AlexandrB 3y ago

I think this makes a ton of sense for corporate customers and specialized, expensive software packages, but the model has trickled down to weather apps and text editors. Software that didn't/wouldn't cost more than ~$50 in an "up front purchase" model, but now requires an ongoing subscription to keep using. Many apps using a SaaS business model also don't like to let you manage your own data and insist or at least nudge you towards storing data in their cloud - which locks you in a lot more.

aidenn0 3y ago
In addition, B2C subscription software incentivizes making the customer dependent upon your software. If I pay up-front for software, the business is agnostic as to how much or little I use the software. If I subscribe to a SaaS service, they are incentivized to manipulate me to use the software more.
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  > B2C subscription software incentivizes making the customer dependent upon your software. This is one of the points made in the video, explicitly.
gruez 3y ago
>but the model has trickled down to weather apps and text editors. Software that didn't/wouldn't cost more than ~$50 in an "up front purchase" model, but now requires an ongoing subscription to keep using. How about using a free text editor or weather app instead? Feels weird to complain about subscription models when there's free first party weather apps for ios and android, and most of the popular text editors are free.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  They're just examples of wider issues - not sure why you're getting hung up on the examples.
  - theamk 3y ago
    No, I think that's exactly the point. I've heard this many of times: "I want to use X but it is subscription-only! .. What about Y, it does the same? ... Y is not polished enough for me, it is missing (some totally optional feature)" I am sure there are some cases where subscription is the only options, but I bet those are super rare. A lot of times when people complain about subscriptions, they are themselves subscribing to totally optional things like games and weather app and text editors.
    - phone8675309 3y ago
      My brother in Christ, the video itself gives other examples than text editors and games and weather apps! The big one is Adobe and the lockin using Adobe products. I wouldn't say there is an industry standard replacement for Photoshop with the features people need, that is interoperable with others using Photoshop, and without a subscription fee otherwise people would already be using it!
      - gruez 3y ago
        > My brother in Christ, the video itself gives other examples than text editors and games and weather apps! And if you read my or the parent's comment more carefully, you'd see that we're not dismissing concerns for all subscription software, only pointing out that weather apps and text editors are particularly bad examples. It's like making a rant about companies are profiteering, and using sports cars as examples. True, the fact that profiteering in sports cars can be justified doesn't mean that profiteering in other parts of the economy doesn't exist, but it's fair to point out how bad of an example it is.

Yujf 3y ago

I agree that in a way it makes sense for a lot of software. But as a consumer who just wants something to use once in a while it does not make any sense. It just feels like you are being milked. I think there are 2 issues. The first is that if you dont use a piece of software very often it does not make sense to have the subscription because it is super expensive compared to the value you get. The second issue is that you make your workflow depended on something and that gives them so much pricing power and you can't stop paying because it would be a lot of work to move to something else. Music streaming is a good model for me because I like to listen to lots of different music and if I bought all of it it would be much more expensive. I also don't feel locked in because I backup my playlists and listening history so if spotify dissappeared tomorrow I still have everything and just move to somrthing else. But I don't like netflix because I am not big on tv shows and I just want to watch one show every couple months.

dingnuts 3y ago
the problem with music streaming is that music randomly disappears from the sites! I remember the first time I tried to queue up an album on Spotify and it was just gone. Heartbreaking. Nope, not worth it. Bandcamp lets you listen to albums before you buy them, and once you own them, you have the files and they can't just disappear. not to mention that you can't even hear music on streaming sites that has unauthorized samples in it, which is a sort of absurd and related topic (that it's illegal to make some kinds of art) but practically speaking I just want to listen to Neil Cicierega in the same place as everything else.
aidenn0 3y ago
Seconded (though I subscribe to Netflix and not Spotify). As a prelude, I should note that I strongly prefer listening to albums over singles, which puts me in a minority, so the following probably doesn't apply to you: I've been purchasing music since the early 90s, and specifically on CDs since the mid 90s. Currently one month of Spotify costs about the same as a new album, and 2-10 used albums, depending on what sort of deal I can get. In a counterfactual world in which Spotify existed in 1995, Let's say I purchased mostly new albums for an average of 1.5 albums[1] per month instead of paying for Spotify. I would end up with 342 albums, which is a pretty decent variety. I just checked my library, and I don't own quite that many. Part of this is due to how @#$# expensive CDs were when I was at my poorest[2] 1: This is probably low, because I might pick up 10 albums for $10 in one visit to a flea-market or via a craigslist find, while I'm not going to go on a triple-digit new-CD binge. 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_price_fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_price_fixing

eesmith 3y ago

At https://youtu.be/XuTQbOo3Y30?t=1391 https://youtu.be/XuTQbOo3Y30?t=1391 the speaker agrees with you: "Particularly for freelancers and small businesses then, the appeal to this model is actually pretty clear. Previously, access to such software required substantial investment. But now it was relatively manageable overhead which could be paid for over time." The counter-argument, at https://youtu.be/XuTQbOo3Y30?t=1433 https://youtu.be/XuTQbOo3Y30?t=1433, is that once you have a large set of documents in a proprietary format (in the Adobe example) and built-up muscle memory then you "addicted" in the sense you are dependent on the service and can't easily switch without a lot of effort, and the only option is to go cold-turkey.

alright2565 3y ago

> SaaS solved the issue of: I want continually improved and supported software, but I don't want to pay $5000 (or whatever fee makes sense) upfront for it. Jetbrains solved this is in an even better and consumer-friendly way: - You buy the software on a recurring subscription and always get the latest version - If you stop your subscription, you can continue using a year-old version of the software forever This aligns everyone's incentives! Jetbrains is incentivized to invest in R&D, because they don't want customers to decide the older version is fine and not continue their subscription. The customers know that regardless of what happens, they will always have access to the software they need.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago

Same with cheap printers being a form of addiction creation, that's a real stretch of the analogy. It's a business model where most of the charges are backloaded, that's it.