3 ms·

That's not the kind of value that matters to the user. Software is not supposed to have value, it's supposed to deliver value. And that is not subject to rot th

That's not the kind of value that matters to the user. Software is not supposed to have value, it's supposed to deliver value. And that is not subject to rot through competition. If some program from 2000 delivered me $100 of value yearly then, the existence of an enshittified competitor from 2020 that produces $100 of annual value for me today doesn't make the 24-year-old program suddenly deliver less value.

9dev 2y ago
It can also become a liability and introduce cost, though: For example, if your old program requires emulation to run on a modern OS, or some file conversion process, or network isolation. All these things fall under maintenance costs that you probably don't factor into your calculation. Your "enshittified" competitor won't have these, and may very well deliver a higher net value, all considered.
echoangle 2y ago
In the point of the original comment, it absolutely is. They said: > Thing is, I don’t believe in owning software forever anymore. Things loose their value too quickly: what would an Office suite from 2005 yield me now, other than the need to run an ancient VM to produce files nobody else could work with? Am I ever going to play the copy of Dungeon Siege again that I bought in ca. 2002? No. It looks unbearable today. The point as I understood it was: why would I pay a high fixed fee to own a software “forever” if I am not really going to use it forever? At some point, a subscription will be cheaper overall. Because people buying an office suite in 2005 for a fixed fee aren’t using it anymore, they can also use LibreOffice now. So if they had a choice between “one time $500” or “$5 per month”, the monthly option would have been better. Software not degrading because it’s digital doesn’t change that.

3 ms·

That's not the kind of value that matters to the user. Software is not supposed to have value, it's supposed to deliver value. And that is not subject to rot th

by TeMPOraL 2y ago

9dev 2y ago
It can also become a liability and introduce cost, though: For example, if your old program requires emulation to run on a modern OS, or some file conversion process, or network isolation. All these things fall under maintenance costs that you probably don't factor into your calculation. Your "enshittified" competitor won't have these, and may very well deliver a higher net value, all considered.
echoangle 2y ago
In the point of the original comment, it absolutely is. They said: > Thing is, I don’t believe in owning software forever anymore. Things loose their value too quickly: what would an Office suite from 2005 yield me now, other than the need to run an ancient VM to produce files nobody else could work with? Am I ever going to play the copy of Dungeon Siege again that I bought in ca. 2002? No. It looks unbearable today. The point as I understood it was: why would I pay a high fixed fee to own a software “forever” if I am not really going to use it forever? At some point, a subscription will be cheaper overall. Because people buying an office suite in 2005 for a fixed fee aren’t using it anymore, they can also use LibreOffice now. So if they had a choice between “one time $500” or “$5 per month”, the monthly option would have been better. Software not degrading because it’s digital doesn’t change that.