I really do appreciate the classic software pricing.
It could be a higher fee, or more frequent but I'm really tired of all the Recurring costs!
The danger of the one-off model is that it sometimes creates the wrong incentives. Features and even bug fixes get pushed into newer versions, which may even delay their release until there's enough of them to justify a new version.
A good example of this going awry is the RAW file processing for Photoshop (pre-subscription). Newer cameras would get added to new versions of the Camera Raw plugin but you needed a new version of Photoshop to use the newer Camera Raw versions.
I honestly don't mind the subscription model and I think Jetbrains has about the best one of all: you get constant acess to upgrades. When you choose to stop subscribing, that simply locks in the latest version you can use (ie you don't lose access entirely).
The problem is many companies price subscriptions wrong. They say "our software costs $600 so we should charge $50/month". Because, you know, recouping that cost in a year is somehow reasonable.
I can't say I recognize that wrong incentives in real life and I've yet to find a single piece of software that I'm willing to pay a subscription for.
It all comes down to business ethics, are you trying to rip off your customers? Most can't afford to piss off their paying users so they play nice (and I hope that is not the only reason they are being reasonable).
But rather that companies that don't offer subscriptions can't game on features and bug-fixes just to fish for upgrade fees before people feel (rightly so) ripped off. There is an implicit agreement on the support provided and if the company fails to deliver that people won't play along.
Also, if you loose access when you stop subscribing that is actually much harder to do compared to not paying for an upgrade if you "own" a license of the software.
It's easier to cancel a subscription than get a refund on a license.
Statements like this ignore the costs of creating it in the first place.
Software is something that needs to be continuously developed and maintained. Charging a one-time fee is a fundamentally unsustainable approach. We all have to face reality and start paying for software as a subscription.
Now, that will likely end the bubble of "I can buy 100 apps, most of which I'll never use", which we have been in for the last 20 years or so. But perhaps the few apps that people will pay for will become better as a result. I'm hoping for it.
Not always. Sometimes software is "done" and warrants no further changes or maintenance. I have run into this issue with mobile apps that worked perfectly to my satisfaction until the authors decided to "redesign" or "improve" it. I think subscription is a valid use case for customers who want active maintenance, but it should be opt-in. I detest the forced-subscription model that JetBrains attempted ("Didn't pay the latest subscription? We'll brick the application you've installed and are running on your hardware").
They never attempted that. You were always able to use the version you paid for, even if you stopped your subscription.
Oh, but they did[1]. You might have missed the initial drama as it transpired because of their quick U-turn (to their credit). I have reason to doubt the subscription plans they published which clearly stated that failure to keep up with the subscription would lead to bricked IDEs. JetBrains only backtracked[2] after receiving sustained pushback. There were HN posts for the initial bricking plan[3] and the backtrack[4].
1. http://bytecrafter.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-jetbrains-lost-y...
2. https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/18/final-update-on-t...
Charging a one time fee works just fine for lots of folks out there making software. It's especially good for anyone who's doing it in their spare time as they don't have to provide updates for every little niggle someone may find. Some offer a subscription alongside the one-off model, which is the best of both worlds if the developer(s) are continuously working on it. Others ask you to purchase the major upgrades but give minor upgrades for free.
There are lots of payment models out there, and the developers should pick what works for both them and their customers. There's no way most of my colleagues who have a license would have purchased sublime if it was a rolling cost, so that model seems to be working in their favor right now, at least for single developer purchases.
ST3 is continuously improved. They are developers. They eat. They have families. Just like you receive a salary, because the software you work on, probably is never done. Why would anyone feel entitled to improvements for a flat rate? Is that not greedy?
You already paid by buying a faster computer. Some don't want to upgrade their computer; in this case, sublime is well worth its price.
Speak for yourself.
People who don't have no says whatsoever in this particular subthread discussion.
So no, he doesn't speak for the people who use ST.
The generalization that implies that the OP is a person who codes for a living is far from "completely unwarranted".
No reason to tell everyone about it.
If someone comments: "It's not much to pay $70 for something you use professionally, and get value out of it everyday etc" -- it only adds noise to chime in "I don't use it professionally" or "I don't use it everyday".
It's a conditional sentence (even if implicit). If one is not on that category, then yes, obviously the argument doesn't apply to them.
It's a way better deal (and arguably a better tool) than what you get with Sublime.
Assuming 4hs net per day, 20 days/month, 12 months .. thats 960 hours/year
And that's assuming that you spent all those 4 hours _entirely_ on your text editor; no cli, no browser, no nothing.. only text editor.
I'd say that on avg we should be doing ~200 hours per year.. Are there any study about this?
Obviously not everyone will be using their editor more than half the time, but many do. And many often use their editor outside of work too.
So, this leaves me of two minds about a hypothetical subscription model. If it meant that ST's developers had an ongoing income that allowed them to work full-time on the project, set a regular release schedule, and be more open with communication, it would be worth it. But if users had been asked to pay, say, $49 a year for the last five years with ST3 on an "um, they pop up once a year to say they're still working on it, I guess" schedule, I'm pretty confident it would have gone over even more poorly than what actually happened.
But the issue you talk about is where major version upgrades come in. Sublime text could cease all development tomorrow and not pay another cent towards development, should people have to continue to pay to keep using it? If new major feature are requested then that is grounds for charging and upgrade fee, otherwise I don't see why people should pay.
I'm worried about using the hosted version of KeeWeb, also it doesn't seems as practical as a standalone app. But I'll definitely try to host myself (or use locally on the phone?) and give a try. Thanks.