4 ms·

Why every product I like ends up being bought... argh, we can't have nice things.

chadcmulligan 3y ago
It's interesting, if a car company is bought then they keep churning out cars (usually), if a software company is bought it's often broken. Software dev is a fragile thing relying on a network of talented individuals which is very easily broken by accountants and bottom lines. In some ways it's more like movie companies with networks of creatives that can be damaged by a takeover - Disney/Marvel immediately comes to mind.
paxys 3y ago
Because no one wants to pay for products they like.
- hollander 3y ago
  We don't want to pay for software? Look at the Appstore! Good products for reasonable prices are worth the money. Affinity offers a good product for a reasonable price. Adobe offers a better product but the subscription model is hated by many. For me Affinity products are good enough. Let's hope the current versions keep on working on Apple Silicon and Windows 11/12/etc. The current 2 version is good enough for me and for the next ten years. If I really need AI tools for image editing, I'll take a one month subscription to some tool.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I look at app stores and see a lot of "free to play" products. So many users have gotten so accustomed to not paying upfront for products (which historically could be substantial amounts) that the option is often no longer available.
    - microtonal 3y ago
      Affinity targets professional users who would purchase Adobe products otherwise. Professional users are more willing to pay for products. Affinity was doing pretty well in the Mac App Store (though they moved to free download + in-app purchase or purchase through their website).
  - whywhywhywhy 3y ago
    > We don't want to pay for software? Look at the Appstore! Good products for reasonable prices are worth the money Such a strange statement in 2024, we all know almost no developers can afford to live off charging a fair price $20+ for software on there because people wont buy it, or charging the price people will actually pay on there which is $0. Only way to make money on the App Store is to hammer in ads, sell data, exploit or trick people into subscriptions.
- soapdog 3y ago
  Well, everyone of their clients was paying for a license. Affinity was not free/fremium.
  - paxys 3y ago
    Affinity has a $100 one-time payment, and you can use it in perpetuity. Adobe's customers are paying $60+ per month. So there was a lot of unrealized market value. No shit they wanted to cash out on it.
    - microtonal 3y ago
      And yet, they released a new version and I and every Affinity user I know bought it. Don't forget that a lot of people moved from Adobe to Affinity apps because Adobe rammed subscriptions down their throats. There is a lot of loyalty towards Affinity because they are not Adobe, if they become a mini-Adobe, that loyalty will be burned to the ground. And at that point, why not just use Adobe products? They'll lose playing Adobe's game, Adobe has infinite funds in comparison and can pull an Office 365 on Canva.
    - soapdog 3y ago
      we all were happily paying for upgrades.
- drivingmenuts 3y ago
  I don't mind paying for software, but I don't want to rent it - which is effectively what subscriptions are.
jsjohnst 3y ago
Because not everyone can or should IPO. Once you get to a certain point in size, your investors will start pushing for an exit (where you have two main options, IPO or sell).
- sofixa 3y ago
  It's sad that management buyouts aren't more popular. It would probably make for more quality products not having to conform to expectations of the market or private equity.
- latexr 3y ago
  What investors? As far as I know they were never VC funded. Affinity wasn’t a dinky startup, the parent company (Serif) was founded almost four decades ago.
  - jsjohnst 3y ago
    > What investors? GP made a broad statement, I was replying in general following suit.
pembrook 3y ago
Apparently most of the market doesn’t want the same things you want. Otherwise Affinity would be the giant acquiring a much smaller Canva team. That said, this is also further proof of why the standalone software license model died. If Affinity had a great business of their own, they wouldn’t need to sell. Turns out if you want a software team to continue providing value to you, you should probably put them on salary (subscription).
- upsuper 3y ago
  > If Affinity had a great business of their own, they wouldn’t need to sell. They don't need to. They mentioned that in their FAQ: > We have to say that selling Serif was not on our minds at all, but when Canva contacted us (only a couple of months ago!) there was something about it which just felt right.
  - pembrook 3y ago
    Riiight. They had a fantastically enjoyable and profitable business going for themselves...but they decided they'd rather give up all control and sell their baby to a much larger corporate entity, give up the future upside from any growth, and play office politics instead of control their own destiny. ...because it just "felt right."
    - candiodari 3y ago
      Not really. They did so because people pay MUCH more for much less functionality in Canva, and so accepting the offer gives them a payday they couldn't hope to accumulate themselves.
rchaud 3y ago
Because of the "recurring revenue" SaaS cult.
- candiodari 3y ago
  It's not a cult if it works ...
  - bananapub 3y ago
    what does "work" mean? that it maximises profits for HN posters? that it maximises some abstract goodness for society? that it provides good quality products at the lowest prices? the fact businesses keep doing something doesn't provide any information on if that's good for anyone else.
    - candiodari 3y ago
      Profit in software companies does in fact provide most of those example. Only the last one needs some clarification. If a business did not do things that benefit others, they wouldn't get paid. So, almost by definition, businesses do. You might argue that a bigger value could be provided in another way, but it definitely does provide value.

It's interesting, if a car company is bought then they keep churning out cars (usually), if a software company is bought it's often broken. Software dev is a fragile thing relying on a network of talented individuals which is very easily broken by accountants and bottom lines. In some ways it's more like movie companies with networks of creatives that can be damaged by a takeover - Disney/Marvel immediately comes to mind.

paxys 3y ago

Because no one wants to pay for products they like.

hollander 3y ago
We don't want to pay for software? Look at the Appstore! Good products for reasonable prices are worth the money. Affinity offers a good product for a reasonable price. Adobe offers a better product but the subscription model is hated by many. For me Affinity products are good enough. Let's hope the current versions keep on working on Apple Silicon and Windows 11/12/etc. The current 2 version is good enough for me and for the next ten years. If I really need AI tools for image editing, I'll take a one month subscription to some tool.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I look at app stores and see a lot of "free to play" products. So many users have gotten so accustomed to not paying upfront for products (which historically could be substantial amounts) that the option is often no longer available.
  - microtonal 3y ago
    Affinity targets professional users who would purchase Adobe products otherwise. Professional users are more willing to pay for products. Affinity was doing pretty well in the Mac App Store (though they moved to free download + in-app purchase or purchase through their website).
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  > We don't want to pay for software? Look at the Appstore! Good products for reasonable prices are worth the money Such a strange statement in 2024, we all know almost no developers can afford to live off charging a fair price $20+ for software on there because people wont buy it, or charging the price people will actually pay on there which is $0. Only way to make money on the App Store is to hammer in ads, sell data, exploit or trick people into subscriptions.
soapdog 3y ago
Well, everyone of their clients was paying for a license. Affinity was not free/fremium.
- paxys 3y ago
  Affinity has a $100 one-time payment, and you can use it in perpetuity. Adobe's customers are paying $60+ per month. So there was a lot of unrealized market value. No shit they wanted to cash out on it.
  - microtonal 3y ago
    And yet, they released a new version and I and every Affinity user I know bought it. Don't forget that a lot of people moved from Adobe to Affinity apps because Adobe rammed subscriptions down their throats. There is a lot of loyalty towards Affinity because they are not Adobe, if they become a mini-Adobe, that loyalty will be burned to the ground. And at that point, why not just use Adobe products? They'll lose playing Adobe's game, Adobe has infinite funds in comparison and can pull an Office 365 on Canva.
  - soapdog 3y ago
    we all were happily paying for upgrades.
drivingmenuts 3y ago
I don't mind paying for software, but I don't want to rent it - which is effectively what subscriptions are.

jsjohnst 3y ago

Because not everyone can or should IPO. Once you get to a certain point in size, your investors will start pushing for an exit (where you have two main options, IPO or sell).

sofixa 3y ago
It's sad that management buyouts aren't more popular. It would probably make for more quality products not having to conform to expectations of the market or private equity.
latexr 3y ago
What investors? As far as I know they were never VC funded. Affinity wasn’t a dinky startup, the parent company (Serif) was founded almost four decades ago.
- jsjohnst 3y ago
  > What investors? GP made a broad statement, I was replying in general following suit.

pembrook 3y ago

Apparently most of the market doesn’t want the same things you want. Otherwise Affinity would be the giant acquiring a much smaller Canva team. That said, this is also further proof of why the standalone software license model died. If Affinity had a great business of their own, they wouldn’t need to sell. Turns out if you want a software team to continue providing value to you, you should probably put them on salary (subscription).

upsuper 3y ago
> If Affinity had a great business of their own, they wouldn’t need to sell. They don't need to. They mentioned that in their FAQ: > We have to say that selling Serif was not on our minds at all, but when Canva contacted us (only a couple of months ago!) there was something about it which just felt right.
- pembrook 3y ago
  Riiight. They had a fantastically enjoyable and profitable business going for themselves...but they decided they'd rather give up all control and sell their baby to a much larger corporate entity, give up the future upside from any growth, and play office politics instead of control their own destiny. ...because it just "felt right."
  - candiodari 3y ago
    Not really. They did so because people pay MUCH more for much less functionality in Canva, and so accepting the offer gives them a payday they couldn't hope to accumulate themselves.

rchaud 3y ago

Because of the "recurring revenue" SaaS cult.

candiodari 3y ago
It's not a cult if it works ...
- bananapub 3y ago
  what does "work" mean? that it maximises profits for HN posters? that it maximises some abstract goodness for society? that it provides good quality products at the lowest prices? the fact businesses keep doing something doesn't provide any information on if that's good for anyone else.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    Profit in software companies does in fact provide most of those example. Only the last one needs some clarification. If a business did not do things that benefit others, they wouldn't get paid. So, almost by definition, businesses do. You might argue that a bigger value could be provided in another way, but it definitely does provide value.