4 ms·

So that people feel less screwed about the fact that they are paying for the same product repeatedly.

by xaa 14y ago

SquareWheel 14y ago
I bought it when Sublime Text 2 came out of Beta, which wasn't all that long ago, was it? As somebody that very rarely buys tools, it's hard not to feel a little incensed.
- toast76 14y ago
  It's $30. What sort of development are you doing that isn't worth $30 for the single tool that allows you to do it? I can't imagine carpenters are incensed when Ryobi brings out a new $300 drill. You either buy the new drill, or you keep the old one. Nobody expects new hardware for free, why software?
  - ianstormtaylor 14y ago
    Completely agree. If you don't need it, don't buy it. It's that simple. You can't shell out $30 for one of the most important parts of your development environment?
  - ok_craig 14y ago
    If you have an old drill and buy a new one, you own an old drill and a new drill. If you have old software and update it, you only have the new software. In the first case, the value of your goods and of their use to you is more than just one drill. In the second case, you end up paying more than the price of the newest software, for just the newest software. From this, one could make the argument that the most fair upgrade price would be $11 - the difference between the old and new software.
    - FooBarWidget 14y ago
      By that argument, the best strategy is to hold off buying any software indefinitely until you are absolutely sure that there will be no future paid updates. That doesn't work.
      - ok_craig 14y ago
        I don't see why that argument equals that strategy. It's an argument for expecting a specific price, not for waiting for a specific product or service.
  - SquareWheel 14y ago
    "What sort of development are you doing that isn't worth $30 for the single tool that allows you to do it?" I do light programming, mostly web stuff. Sublime certainly isn't the only tool that allows me to edit code, I used Notepad++ for years, and I'm sure there's a dozen other options. I also just use it as a regular old notepad. I suppose what I'm saying is my expectation was that for a premium tool, I would be supported with updates and bug fixes for a longer period of time. I probably will buy the upgrade, but I would hope for a longer period of support with version 3. If this turns into a recurring payment model I may need to switch back to strictly free and open source tools.
    - perishabledave 14y ago
      It's not uncommon; Visual Studio's release cycle is around every two years. To work out the math a bit, say the developer is looking to make 70k a year (which is quite low IMO, especially if you are self employed). If his release cycle is every two years, he needs to make 140k over one version. At $59 for S2, thats around 2400 sold copies over two years. Not a small number for a product that is tailored to such a niche market. Also considering that there comes a point where the purchases trail off, so the developer needs to find a way to sustain an income. Upgrades seem like a very reasonable way to do that. With S3, if the developer wanted to offer a reasonable way to allow S2 owners to upgrade at a discount, it comes at a loss of income for the next two years. Given that the amount of people who would buy the editor have already bought S2, so the pool of possible purchasers decreases. So it seems like a reasonable balance to allow that discounted upgrade, while increasing the full price to make up for the loss of new purchasers.
  - xaa 14y ago
    > Nobody expects new hardware for free, why software? Try Googling "Richard Stallman". Or simply reflect upon the fact that > 95% of the software used by the author of ST to create it was free to him.

So that people feel less screwed about the fact that they are paying for the same product repeatedly.

by xaa 14y ago

So that people feel less screwed about the fact that they are paying for the same product repeatedly.

I bought it when Sublime Text 2 came out of Beta, which wasn't all that long ago, was it? As somebody that very rarely buys tools, it's hard not to feel a little incensed.

toast76 14y ago
It's $30. What sort of development are you doing that isn't worth $30 for the single tool that allows you to do it? I can't imagine carpenters are incensed when Ryobi brings out a new $300 drill. You either buy the new drill, or you keep the old one. Nobody expects new hardware for free, why software?
- ianstormtaylor 14y ago
  Completely agree. If you don't need it, don't buy it. It's that simple. You can't shell out $30 for one of the most important parts of your development environment?
- ok_craig 14y ago
  If you have an old drill and buy a new one, you own an old drill and a new drill. If you have old software and update it, you only have the new software. In the first case, the value of your goods and of their use to you is more than just one drill. In the second case, you end up paying more than the price of the newest software, for just the newest software. From this, one could make the argument that the most fair upgrade price would be $11 - the difference between the old and new software.
  - FooBarWidget 14y ago
    By that argument, the best strategy is to hold off buying any software indefinitely until you are absolutely sure that there will be no future paid updates. That doesn't work.
    - ok_craig 14y ago
      I don't see why that argument equals that strategy. It's an argument for expecting a specific price, not for waiting for a specific product or service.
- SquareWheel 14y ago
  "What sort of development are you doing that isn't worth $30 for the single tool that allows you to do it?" I do light programming, mostly web stuff. Sublime certainly isn't the only tool that allows me to edit code, I used Notepad++ for years, and I'm sure there's a dozen other options. I also just use it as a regular old notepad. I suppose what I'm saying is my expectation was that for a premium tool, I would be supported with updates and bug fixes for a longer period of time. I probably will buy the upgrade, but I would hope for a longer period of support with version 3. If this turns into a recurring payment model I may need to switch back to strictly free and open source tools.
  - perishabledave 14y ago
    It's not uncommon; Visual Studio's release cycle is around every two years. To work out the math a bit, say the developer is looking to make 70k a year (which is quite low IMO, especially if you are self employed). If his release cycle is every two years, he needs to make 140k over one version. At $59 for S2, thats around 2400 sold copies over two years. Not a small number for a product that is tailored to such a niche market. Also considering that there comes a point where the purchases trail off, so the developer needs to find a way to sustain an income. Upgrades seem like a very reasonable way to do that. With S3, if the developer wanted to offer a reasonable way to allow S2 owners to upgrade at a discount, it comes at a loss of income for the next two years. Given that the amount of people who would buy the editor have already bought S2, so the pool of possible purchasers decreases. So it seems like a reasonable balance to allow that discounted upgrade, while increasing the full price to make up for the loss of new purchasers.
- xaa 14y ago
  > Nobody expects new hardware for free, why software? Try Googling "Richard Stallman". Or simply reflect upon the fact that > 95% of the software used by the author of ST to create it was free to him.