Hacker News Reader

Comment by pokstad | Hacker News Reader

The software world is different today. People expect you to release security updates as vulnerabilities are discovered. They expect you to fix your application so that it works on the newest macOS that deprecated and broke the old APIs you used (or switch architectures). We expect continuous maintenance for a fixed price. I wish Textmate had a yearly charge to keep their team running instead of the one time purchase that starved them.

View on HN

You're making this up to justify subscription model guilt. Nobody (besides those on here) EXPECTS this. In fact, most would rather live with the risks than deal with subscription model, let alone the headaches of updating and it breaking everything (i.e. causing a chain reaction that you have to update EVERYTHING in order to fix a small non-issue).

I, in fact, do NOT want continuous maintenance. Ever. I will literally never turn on auto-updates for the rest of my life.

I think you’re in the minority. There are products out there that suit you. They are not mainstream products.

Mainstream behavior doesn't necessarily mean what people want. Many try and fail to stop Windows updates, for instance. I would guess that the majority of the users of the TicketMaster app would rather not use it.

Hmmm I can’t think of a subscription app that truly doesn’t have a free/upfront/unupgraded alternative - its just that usually they come with quality issues or poor support, so people choose the better, subscription-based, auto-updating ones.

I can think of plenty of apps that have perfectly fine non-subscription options, and then turned subscription only.

People use them because the products were good or industry standard. They don't prefer them because subscriptions somehow magically enabled them to be better.

They already preferred them over alternatives before subscriptions. If anything, people often complain that they got shittier after the subscription was introduced, once many are onboard and captive.

And people use their subscription versions because a non-subscription version is not made available anymore. The real comparison of what users prefer wouldn't be "X subscription software vs Y non-subscription". It would be "X subscription or X non-subscription".

Don't you think that if people preferred it strongly, a competitor would gobble up that opportunity if the model was viable?

Regarding your last point, there's plenty of software offering both options ($$$ lifetime vs $ monthly). I don't have the data but I bet they see a TON more sales for $ monthly.

E.g. Final Cut Pro for macOS is available as a one-time purchase for $299.99. Alternatively, you can subscribe to Apple Creator Studio for $12.99/month or $129/year

I'm with you. I also hate automatic updates. Times when I want my software to behave differently from the day before without me requesting it: Zero.

It puts the incentives on the wrong spot too. They are no longer incentivized to make shit appealing enough to upgrade.

MeThree.

But I think it's not the case incentives are wrong but the reality of business - what do you do when things are feature complete in all the ways that matter?

I dunno, what does Jordan's Furniture do about the fact that the recliner I'm sitting on is feature complete and has been since 2005 and seems to be sturdy enough to last me for the next twenty years? Try to sell me something better, try to sell me different things, try to sell things to other people, and succeed or fail at those goals.

I haven't used a Mac in a bit but I remember liking BBEdit back in the 00s, and it still seems to exist without having a subscription model.

I consider my phone scrap as soon as it stops getting security updates. Same goes for almost all proprietary software.

Open source needs updates too, but somehow we take that for granted.

I think there is one major difference that separates the two eras: in ye olden days you bought software for a fixed price and while it's understood you might only receive updates for a limited time, you could continue using it so long as you had the ability to run it. For example, you didn't have to upgrade to Windows XP if you were satisfied with Windows 98. With subscriptions, it's a recurring fee to continue accessing the software at all.

Windows sells more copies of its software the OEM route. Also, they sell specific versions that eventually end support. Today you might consider Windows almost a loss leader since Microsoft is diversified with many services on top of windows.

It ignores the point. If I've bought BBEdit 13 for 60 USD three years ago and I'm still happy with it, I can keep using it for the rest of my life without paying more. If I want the new features, then I can pay 40 USD to get the latest version.

This is a sane AND a sustainable model for companies, and actually creates MORE incentives for the developers to align with the user's interest: if the new update sucks and has features no one asked for, then nobody will pay for the new version and keep the old one.

There is no reason why previous versions of the software you paid a license for should effectively "disappear".

I’m a fan of the subscription model where if you stop paying, you continue to have a license for the last version you got during the subscription.

I’ve appreciated that in a few apps where my need for them on a daily basis evaporated but I still need to briefly touch that system once every few months.

Software today is worse in every possible way. Subscription solicitation is one such dimension.

BBEdit, Sublime et al. are beacons of what software quality, distribution and pricing ought to be.

three quarters of the saas industry is built around such made-up needs. Not much to be proud of there with a handful of exceptions.

as for price, it feels 100% fair to bleed your enterprise customers to subsidize individual customers.

Yep. Give people two choices.

1) Purchase a major version and get no updates.

2) Purchase a subscription and get constant updates.

Or use "The Dutch Model":

Pay for the major version, get all of its updates. Then pay for update (to next major plus its updates) with a discount.

If you don't prefer the pay, you can keep what you have.

This is what Reaper, Forklift, CameraBag and countless others do, and it works very well.

Edit: This comment contained Forklift as an example before, but they have changed their model, so it's removed.

Forklift only sells you a year of updates at a time now.

Yeah, you're right. I remembered it now. However, they have stopped doing "major" releases at the same time, too.

Let me update the comment.

I’m a big fan of JetBrains model for this. Buy the software on a subscription, and the subscription gets cheaper for the first 3 annual renewals. While you’re subscribed you get access to the most current version and when you stop subscribing you have a lifetime license for the latest major version (and it’s patches) that you’ve paid for at least a year of. The subscription helps fund the continuous development that is expected of modern software but you still get to keep something for having invested that money when you’re done.

^^ This. ^^

Choices!

As a customer, so many frustrating things boil down to not being given a choice. Not even having a tickbox to express which way you'd like it even if the default is otherwise.

One should be able to write a text editor without security vulnerabilities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com