If I convert my bank statements only each quarter in a spike or once or twice a year, why should I pay for each month or the entire year? Of course I don't know the real usage patterns of this application, but that's one scenario I'd think of.
If I pay for something, I want the tool to work for me. I can't use an application if it tries to steal my attention all the time. An upgrade pop-up there, a reminder notification there, and the application wears me down.
I like quiet applications. It's there. I'll use it. An unobtrusive promo button for a new feature is OK, but constant nudging for the same thing is tiring. Dropbox used to do that with document signatures, they stopped now AFAICS.
If I pay for your application, please be patient and respectful, because the moment I feel that your application is more about getting my money than providing me services, I'm out.
The value I get is in the service you provide via your application. Not the existence of said application, so stop treating your users as cows in line waiting to be milked.
This is another reason I'm self hosting as much as possible. I'm willing to put in the work to maintain an application rather than seeing constant banners and pop-ups wedged in to milk me more.
I don't believe such future will arrive by itself, but we can build a calm tech stack for ourselves. I successfully pruned much of the noisier stuff from my environment, and cutting down subscriptions left and right.
Unfortunately, some of the subscriptions are really useful, or I like how they present the thing I'm working on, so they stay for the time being.
Thanks for the link. I'll be diving into this.
But really that cacophony of upgrades etc isn’t about user control, but just companies reminding you they exist. It’s spam, and like spam fighting, agents will not be able to handle it adequately.
macOS and iOS doing updates when you are not looking is good because they store your app state most of the time.
Some macOS programs' "We have downloaded the update, it'll update silently when you exit" is also nice and kind way of doing it.
Firefox recently remedied its "We updated in the background but broke the runtime" problem for some months now on Linux and macOS, from which I observe.
However nudging, aggressive updates, forcing user to stop or take breaks are not calm technology. I accept that wholeheartedly.
People don't appreciate enough that releasing new software has a cost. Upgrading is risky and disruptive. Even on iOS, where app upgrades are as low effort as possible, they're a nuisance; I'm occasionally unable to open an app I need because it's mid-update. One time, I was using an app, closed it to get some information from another app, and when I wanted to go back to the first app I couldn't because it had started an auto update.
Software updates are a necessary evil. As such, they should be as infrequent as is reasonably possible.
If you want to go nuclear, you can disable update notifications altogether under administrative settings, I believe.
On the other hand, I mostly charge my iOS devices at night, and they handle updates & backups when they are charging. I didn't see an app updating midday for years, I believe.
Nextcloud is a bit too noisy on the app updates department, though, we can all agree on that.
Almost everything else in my life is a one time purchase. I pay for the thing, I use it forever. I would never buy a vacuum cleaner subscription. Or a pressure washer subscription. Why should I need to endlessly pay for software?
The usual excuses from developers:
1. But I need to maintain the server and that's a monthly cost!
Nope. Tethering your software to a server was your choice, not mine. I shouldn't have to pay for your decision. I have lots of perfectly good software on my computer that work fine without your server.
2. But it costs money to constantly be developing and publishing updates!
Nope. Nobody is asking you to constantly change your software. Generally, I don't want your updates. The software met my needs when I bought it, and I don't want you to change it, and I certainly don't want to keep paying you just so you can keep changing it.
We need to go back to treating software like it was something you bought in a box off a store shelf and that was it. No recurring payments. No updates. No accounts. No nagging. No telemetry. Just a box of bits that I hand over money for once.
I think it's pretty clear that management has taken advantage of that instinct. They keep upgrading software long after it really is fully finished. Nobody has wanted a new version of Microsoft Word for decades.
But it took decades to reach that point. Most software hasn't reached it. We send out software barely good enough -- if that much. Because it takes a long time to actually get good, and if we waited that long, the company would have gone belly-up. And the customers seem content to buy good-enough software, in the hopes that the other bugs and features will get fixed.
Obviously you should be able to opt out of all of that, and stick with a version you like. When enough customers do that, you stop, and move on to a new thing.
But I do think it's inevitable that companies will sell you a Minimum Viable Product and charge you to complete it. Because that's how they are able to afford to get it out the door before they go bankrupt. And if they don't, somebody else will, and get the software out faster.
*Edit: Apparently I forgot how to spell.
Yes, traditional software also has a cost for maintenance and features but users could opt out to not pay for them.
I personally rather to either pay per usage, pay for the full year if it's valuable enough to purchase a license for desktop / mobile apps if possible.
I hit this wall about 2-3 years ago at least...