3 ms·

Replacing a product you sell, which results in a periodic, unpredictable, and spiky revenue stream, with a subscription or lease is an explicit goal of American

Replacing a product you sell, which results in a periodic, unpredictable, and spiky revenue stream, with a subscription or lease is an explicit goal of American business theology. You as a software developer will never convince the guys that hired you to NOT do that, because it's literally and clearly Good For Business. Good Software development, good Product development, etc, is Art, ie knowing which tradeoffs will benefit a subset of users, knowing where to spend limited time optimizing for the best results, caring about aesthetics and accessibility and interoperability, caring about software freedoms... Business Management abhors art because even if you as a CEO or something value it on some level, it's impossible to generate the kind of graphs that please the beancounters from artistic merits.

seanhunter 2y ago
You won’t convince them because you don’t understand why they think the things they do. Even if you hate management and business types altogether, you’re never going to be able to understand them unless you actually consider they may have a rational basis for their actions. In this case, they don’t care about subscriptions because they hate art or hate freedom or have a “theology” or anything like that. Subscriptions are preferable to one-off payment for a software product primarily because software incurs an ongoing cost (support, maintenance, enhancement etc which users have come to expect and also servers etc for any online features the software needs) and therefore it’s better to match that with an ongoing revenue stream. If you have an ongoing cost base but only point-in-time revenue then every sale you make is essentially creating future problems because you are creating future cost that isn’t supported by revenue. You essentially have turned your business economics into a Ponzi scheme and can only keep going if you perpetually grow sales which is not sustainable.
- thaumaturgy 2y ago
  Rich Siegel would like a word. There absolutely is a theology of business, and currently it is this: make as much money as possible. Commercial software existed long before the subscription model consumed everything, and it was, and still is, sustainable. Subscriptions didn't consume the software ecosystem because the alternative is not sustainable; subscriptions took over because they make more money (and often for less effort). It's fine if you want to describe that as rational decision-making in business contexts, but I have to object if you cross a line into arguing that there are no viable alternatives. There are subscriptions, and then there are less profitable alternatives.
  - Borg3 2y ago
    Exacly. Additionaly, you can sell software and include a year support bundle. If you want to have longer support (or extend support), you have to play extra (pear year). That sounds reasonable.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > also servers etc for any online features the software needs This is usually a deliberate choice made by software companies. They take their software that could be (or used to be) run on the user's local PC and then unnecessarily move it to a server. Then, they conveniently have a "Well I have to run a server" excuse for changing to a subscription model. You wouldn't have the costs of running a server if you didn't decide to shoehorn that server into the software in the first place!
  - sophacles 2y ago
    Even if you only sell shrinkwrap software there are ongoing costs for your business in the form of sales, accounting/payroll, office rent, customer support and so on. If you want to have bugfixes available for customers you have to pay developers to do that, and infrastructure for releasing them - this is an ongoing cost. The problem is orthogonal to where software runs: there are subscription models for fully downloadable software that doesn't have to interact with a server (jetbrains for example, and some games).
    - johnea 2y ago
      All of the logic in this entire sub-thread is based on the idea that thet s/w has to be ssold by a vendor. Large orginazations, representing classes of users (architects, engineers, people who type documents and calculate numbers) could produce s/w for their own use, not to sell, and make this s/w available under a free software GPL license. They would save the money they would have spent buying this s/w, and spread those savings to everyone else who used the s/w. I don't want to retype or paste the entry I made below, but please read it and respond to this alternative. Thanks for the discussion!
- wat10000 2y ago
  The standard way to do this was to sell a license for a specific major version. It goes through a lifecycle where it's initially the most current, then gets superseded by a new major version and maybe gets a few more bug fixes, and at some point one of those releases is the last one for that major version and it's done. Buyers can continue using it forever, but there's no maintenance/enhancement cost, and support can be stopped too if you want. This worked for decades and continues to work today for some companies. It's not a Ponzi scheme in any sense.
johnea 2y ago
Your statements all seem correct, but its important to point out (and I think this is what you're trying to do) that the logic is based on meeting the needs of vendors/businesses, not the needs of users. What percentage of people own businesses? What percentage of people use things? ergo What benefits more people: reducing spending for products, or increasing business profits? Some things are best resolved by a profit seeking model, but far far from all things. How many billions of dollars in expenditures would be saved, if institutional users (schools, universities, large businesses, trade/professional organizations) developed s/w for their own use, and shared it via a GPL license? Instead, (statistically) all of these orgs accept the "philanthropic" "gifts" of for-profit s/w products, and subsequently lock all members of each demographic into a lifetime of purchasing that s/w. It's like giving out "free" heroin in high schools. The lifetime profits are enormous. Think AutoCAD, but also everyone paying for simple things like Word/Excel/etc. Often, these desktop applications have already been paid for by the h/w maker, making it even more obfuscated from the user. Widely deployed software freedom would save users billions of dollars, but instead of presenting this as a giant saving, it's presented as a terrible detriment to "business". This is the propaganda that has brain damaged the US population. The idea that benefiting corporations is benefiting them.
- seanhunter 2y ago
  I’m not saying that it’s benefitting users. What I’m saying is if you actually want to make the situation better, rather than high-handed talk about corporate theology and hating art etc and pretending everyone in a position of business authority is either a moron or a zealot or both, you have to meet reality head-on and try to understand why they think the things they do. If you do that, you can hopefully put yourself in a position to influence them to do things that are more in users’ interests. If you don’t, you may well feel superior, but your ability to make change will be severely hampered.

seanhunter 2y ago

You won’t convince them because you don’t understand why they think the things they do. Even if you hate management and business types altogether, you’re never going to be able to understand them unless you actually consider they may have a rational basis for their actions. In this case, they don’t care about subscriptions because they hate art or hate freedom or have a “theology” or anything like that. Subscriptions are preferable to one-off payment for a software product primarily because software incurs an ongoing cost (support, maintenance, enhancement etc which users have come to expect and also servers etc for any online features the software needs) and therefore it’s better to match that with an ongoing revenue stream. If you have an ongoing cost base but only point-in-time revenue then every sale you make is essentially creating future problems because you are creating future cost that isn’t supported by revenue. You essentially have turned your business economics into a Ponzi scheme and can only keep going if you perpetually grow sales which is not sustainable.

thaumaturgy 2y ago
Rich Siegel would like a word. There absolutely is a theology of business, and currently it is this: make as much money as possible. Commercial software existed long before the subscription model consumed everything, and it was, and still is, sustainable. Subscriptions didn't consume the software ecosystem because the alternative is not sustainable; subscriptions took over because they make more money (and often for less effort). It's fine if you want to describe that as rational decision-making in business contexts, but I have to object if you cross a line into arguing that there are no viable alternatives. There are subscriptions, and then there are less profitable alternatives.
- Borg3 2y ago
  Exacly. Additionaly, you can sell software and include a year support bundle. If you want to have longer support (or extend support), you have to play extra (pear year). That sounds reasonable.
ryandrake 2y ago
> also servers etc for any online features the software needs This is usually a deliberate choice made by software companies. They take their software that could be (or used to be) run on the user's local PC and then unnecessarily move it to a server. Then, they conveniently have a "Well I have to run a server" excuse for changing to a subscription model. You wouldn't have the costs of running a server if you didn't decide to shoehorn that server into the software in the first place!
- sophacles 2y ago
  Even if you only sell shrinkwrap software there are ongoing costs for your business in the form of sales, accounting/payroll, office rent, customer support and so on. If you want to have bugfixes available for customers you have to pay developers to do that, and infrastructure for releasing them - this is an ongoing cost. The problem is orthogonal to where software runs: there are subscription models for fully downloadable software that doesn't have to interact with a server (jetbrains for example, and some games).
  - johnea 2y ago
    All of the logic in this entire sub-thread is based on the idea that thet s/w has to be ssold by a vendor. Large orginazations, representing classes of users (architects, engineers, people who type documents and calculate numbers) could produce s/w for their own use, not to sell, and make this s/w available under a free software GPL license. They would save the money they would have spent buying this s/w, and spread those savings to everyone else who used the s/w. I don't want to retype or paste the entry I made below, but please read it and respond to this alternative. Thanks for the discussion!
wat10000 2y ago
The standard way to do this was to sell a license for a specific major version. It goes through a lifecycle where it's initially the most current, then gets superseded by a new major version and maybe gets a few more bug fixes, and at some point one of those releases is the last one for that major version and it's done. Buyers can continue using it forever, but there's no maintenance/enhancement cost, and support can be stopped too if you want. This worked for decades and continues to work today for some companies. It's not a Ponzi scheme in any sense.

johnea 2y ago

Your statements all seem correct, but its important to point out (and I think this is what you're trying to do) that the logic is based on meeting the needs of vendors/businesses, not the needs of users. What percentage of people own businesses? What percentage of people use things? ergo What benefits more people: reducing spending for products, or increasing business profits? Some things are best resolved by a profit seeking model, but far far from all things. How many billions of dollars in expenditures would be saved, if institutional users (schools, universities, large businesses, trade/professional organizations) developed s/w for their own use, and shared it via a GPL license? Instead, (statistically) all of these orgs accept the "philanthropic" "gifts" of for-profit s/w products, and subsequently lock all members of each demographic into a lifetime of purchasing that s/w. It's like giving out "free" heroin in high schools. The lifetime profits are enormous. Think AutoCAD, but also everyone paying for simple things like Word/Excel/etc. Often, these desktop applications have already been paid for by the h/w maker, making it even more obfuscated from the user. Widely deployed software freedom would save users billions of dollars, but instead of presenting this as a giant saving, it's presented as a terrible detriment to "business". This is the propaganda that has brain damaged the US population. The idea that benefiting corporations is benefiting them.

seanhunter 2y ago
I’m not saying that it’s benefitting users. What I’m saying is if you actually want to make the situation better, rather than high-handed talk about corporate theology and hating art etc and pretending everyone in a position of business authority is either a moron or a zealot or both, you have to meet reality head-on and try to understand why they think the things they do. If you do that, you can hopefully put yourself in a position to influence them to do things that are more in users’ interests. If you don’t, you may well feel superior, but your ability to make change will be severely hampered.