3 ms·
> 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 c
by 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 agoAny 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.