Hacker News Reader

Comment by lokimedes | Hacker News Reader

Most of that software could run on prem. The problem is that bundling hosting with the actual software in many cases translates into a way to confuse the expense of one for the other. Things that don’t incur operating expenses shouldn’t be charged as a monthly fee, that is rent seeking. Forcing someone to pay for “services” like hosting, “upgrades”, etc. to gain access to the software is what I find problematic. Now that the business model has become dominant, it is hard to find any software not on a SaaS-like payment plan. Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft, etc. all sold software and now all sell subscriptions with little added value to the customer. But the cashflow of a rent model, as forewarned in “Wealth of nations” is so ensnaring it can only be avoided by law. Yet here we are.

View on HN

But this is still such a bastardization of the term “rent seeking” that is is somewhere between disingenuous and flat out lying.

By this logic, my house cleaner is rent-seeking because I pay every week, but I could do the work myself. That’s not what rent-seeking is. That is a garden variety service.

All of the anti-subscription sentiment just sounds like “I want perpetual support and updates for a one-time price”, which is just silly. It’s actually bad for the customer because once the service provider has your one-time payment, they have zero incentive to keep you as a customer.

It leads to misaligned incentives as sellers seek to expand to new markets to reach new customers while neglecting existing customers who are nothing but expense.

Further, SaaS produces net lower costs because resources can be utilized more efficiently. Great, you can do an on-premise server, but you need to spec it to support the busiest second in the busiest day of your year. Most of the time it will be underutilized.

Sorry, this whole claim is such a massive misunderstanding of Smith and SaaS that it’s making be a bit crazy.

SaaS may not be a particularly good example because like others have mentioned, there are costs to it, and it's up to you to decide whether the price is worth the convenience.

The anti-subscription sentiment is not without merit, however. Software that just runs on your computer now has a fucking subscription for no reason. Adobe, games, etc. That is rent-seeking, because I want to pay for the goddamn thing once and own it. I don't care for support or upgrades; if I do, I'll buy the newer version.

Nobody cares about the costs to offer a product. People care about the value provided.

If I think a service is worth $20 month, that will not change if their cost structure changes and suddenly it costs them $1 or $100 per month to offer. It’s worth $20 to me either way. If their cost becomes $1, I rely on competition to create the consumer surplus.

Sure, but some of us are old enough to remember computing freedom, and for us, it isn't worth it.

> Most of that software could run on prem.

No, because that would require everyone to own and operate their own servers. I am very happy I do not have to share my bedroom with a server rack so that I can operate my company - not to speak of the cost to deploy a 15gbit/s line to my apartment…

That's just called "over time, some products become worse and more expensive"

Every commercial company is free to charge whatever they want, it's not rent-seeking (unless there is a monopoly, but your argument is applies to small companies as well).

And yes, the fact that you cannot find the software you need for the pricing model you like sucks.. but it is not rent-seeking. And the fact that my local Home Depot does not have cheap, but reliable refrigerators is not rent-seeking either. At worst, it is collusion between manufacturers.

> Most of that software could run on prem.

Many companies don’t have a prem on which to run.

Yeah but who going to fund R&D and stuff like that???

Reply on news.ycombinator.com