4 ms·

That seems one-sided. I'm guessing most users bought a product because they found it useful, or at least thought it was useful. Probably the ones who only bough

by diggan 1y ago

That seems one-sided. I'm guessing most users bought a product because they found it useful, or at least thought it was useful. Probably the ones who only bought it to support the company could be counted on one hand. So they still got something for the money they paid, otherwise they wouldn't have paid. If people were donating money to for-profit companies, then you'd have a point in your argument, but that isn't reality as far as I know.

teddyh 1y ago
To use any software in these modern times, it’s not enough to simply get a snapshot and use that forever. That time has long gone. Users need updates for whenever the inevitable incompatibilities arise, and since switching to some other software is a lot of work, users need to be able to depend on regular, timely updates. Indeed, many people choose what software they use solely on that basis. Therefore, when a company “exits”, they leave all their users in the lurch. This applies more universally if the product is not software, but a service. Or if the software depends on the company’s servers.
- diggan 1y ago
  But you don't buy anything today expecting it to work by itself forever, do you? I don't think others do either, most of us are aware that when we buy something, we buy it as-is right now, and if something in the environment changes, where we need to change this purchased thing, we don't expect to get that for free.
  - teddyh 1y ago
    I’m sorry, but in anything you wrote there, I can’t see an argument against anything I wrote. No users are expecting updates for free. But users do expect updates to be available for purchase, which they won’t be if the company has made an “successful exit”. Success for the company is a loss for the customers, and a betrayal of the implicit promise of the initial product.
    - diggan 1y ago
      > I’m sorry, but in anything you wrote there, I can’t see an argument against anything I wrote. I guess the "for free" part kind of threw off the rest of the comment, that's on me. > But users do expect updates to be available for purchase [...] betrayal of the implicit promise of the initial product What users expect to get updates forever for anything they purchase? That's a wild expectation. Never have I believed in any "implicit promise" that what I buy today will be continuously updated even for the life of the company. > Success for the company is a loss for the customers Kind of agree, but I'd say "Success for the founders/investors is a loss for the company and users", otherwise pretty accurate yeah.
      - teddyh 1y ago
        Any customer of, say, Microsoft, expects updates for Windows. If there was no such promise (implicit or explicit), customers would be much more wary of buying and using Windows. The promise of updates is almost the entire thing nowadays. Anyone can find some random program to solve a problem today, but adapting yourself and your problem to the program has such a high cost that you don’t want to get a new program every time. Therefore, a user wants a program with future updates, so that the adaptation cost is a one-time cost. Updates may or may not cost money, but this is almost irrelevant. Users want to avoid the adaptation costs (and associated effort) of switching to another program.

by diggan 1y ago

teddyh 1y ago

To use any software in these modern times, it’s not enough to simply get a snapshot and use that forever. That time has long gone. Users need updates for whenever the inevitable incompatibilities arise, and since switching to some other software is a lot of work, users need to be able to depend on regular, timely updates. Indeed, many people choose what software they use solely on that basis. Therefore, when a company “exits”, they leave all their users in the lurch. This applies more universally if the product is not software, but a service. Or if the software depends on the company’s servers.

diggan 1y ago
But you don't buy anything today expecting it to work by itself forever, do you? I don't think others do either, most of us are aware that when we buy something, we buy it as-is right now, and if something in the environment changes, where we need to change this purchased thing, we don't expect to get that for free.
- teddyh 1y ago
  I’m sorry, but in anything you wrote there, I can’t see an argument against anything I wrote. No users are expecting updates for free. But users do expect updates to be available for purchase, which they won’t be if the company has made an “successful exit”. Success for the company is a loss for the customers, and a betrayal of the implicit promise of the initial product.
  - diggan 1y ago
    > I’m sorry, but in anything you wrote there, I can’t see an argument against anything I wrote. I guess the "for free" part kind of threw off the rest of the comment, that's on me. > But users do expect updates to be available for purchase [...] betrayal of the implicit promise of the initial product What users expect to get updates forever for anything they purchase? That's a wild expectation. Never have I believed in any "implicit promise" that what I buy today will be continuously updated even for the life of the company. > Success for the company is a loss for the customers Kind of agree, but I'd say "Success for the founders/investors is a loss for the company and users", otherwise pretty accurate yeah.
    - teddyh 1y ago
      Any customer of, say, Microsoft, expects updates for Windows. If there was no such promise (implicit or explicit), customers would be much more wary of buying and using Windows. The promise of updates is almost the entire thing nowadays. Anyone can find some random program to solve a problem today, but adapting yourself and your problem to the program has such a high cost that you don’t want to get a new program every time. Therefore, a user wants a program with future updates, so that the adaptation cost is a one-time cost. Updates may or may not cost money, but this is almost irrelevant. Users want to avoid the adaptation costs (and associated effort) of switching to another program.