Subscription is the only way to do software(journal.standardnotes.org)
journal.standardnotes.org
Subscription is the only way to do software
https://journal.standardnotes.org/subscription-is-the-only-way-to-do-software-cb5474c00dc7
124 comments
I've come to the same conclusion. Why do one-time wonders get a free pass on indefinite business?
I believe a business should have to innovate to keep recurring business. Artificially tying it to a subscription is just milking a cow for more than it's worth. Or in this case, charging for access to an unlimited cow that you sometimes augment.
I believe a business should have to innovate to keep recurring business. Artificially tying it to a subscription is just milking a cow for more than it's worth. Or in this case, charging for access to an unlimited cow that you sometimes augment.
This clearly isn't the case, there are numerous successful developers that don't use the subscription momdel:
- In the photography space: Capture One Pro, DxO Optics Pro, ON1.
- In the video space: Avid, DaVinci Resolve, Sony Vegas.
- In the illustration space: Corel, Clip Studio Paint, Painttool SAI.
- In the audio space: ProTools, Ableton, ACID Pro.
- Nearly all video games.
- JetBrains, which has a novel subscription + purchase model where you can cancel your subscription and keep using the software.
I'd argue that the only case where you need a subscription model to stay afloat is when you don't add enough value that your users will be willing to purchase an upgrade.
- In the photography space: Capture One Pro, DxO Optics Pro, ON1.
- In the video space: Avid, DaVinci Resolve, Sony Vegas.
- In the illustration space: Corel, Clip Studio Paint, Painttool SAI.
- In the audio space: ProTools, Ableton, ACID Pro.
- Nearly all video games.
- JetBrains, which has a novel subscription + purchase model where you can cancel your subscription and keep using the software.
I'd argue that the only case where you need a subscription model to stay afloat is when you don't add enough value that your users will be willing to purchase an upgrade.
> Nearly all video games.
Have any games development studio attempted a subscription model to games development and release? Not promoting the idea, wondering if it's been considered. Some popular studios with a good track record could certainly entertain the idea.
Have any games development studio attempted a subscription model to games development and release? Not promoting the idea, wondering if it's been considered. Some popular studios with a good track record could certainly entertain the idea.
Unfortunately, de facto subscriptions have infested video games in the form of microtransactions for gear and loot crate gambling -- even for single-player games.
World of Warcraft is a monthly fee and has been for 10+ years now. They also charge for major releases. It's incredible how much commercial value the Warcraft brand has generated and how it's been able to do it in light of other games not being able to do so.
Initial users got on, and people stay because the game exploits human nature.
The IP helps as well.
The IP helps as well.
That's what DLC is, yeah?
The games industry has largely moved to a 1) ship broken/buggy software, 2) charge for content packs, 3) improve game.
Some franchises really buy into this. Battlefield 4 was basically broken on release, but a couple years and season passes later and it finally plays like the game it should have shipped as.
The games industry has largely moved to a 1) ship broken/buggy software, 2) charge for content packs, 3) improve game.
Some franchises really buy into this. Battlefield 4 was basically broken on release, but a couple years and season passes later and it finally plays like the game it should have shipped as.
The DLC model is essentially an optional subscription. A full year of Call of Duty with DLC through to the next year's launch will cost you about $120. Since people move to playing the new DLC's lobbies, if you don't buy the DLC, you'll find much more limited matchmaking.
I hate the segregating of games like COD by DLC pack ownership, and wish they WOULD just do a $10/month subscription, and keep adding maps and singleplayer campaigns instead of dropping all my favorite maps each year. It's a big reason I no longer buy their titles regularly.
I hate the segregating of games like COD by DLC pack ownership, and wish they WOULD just do a $10/month subscription, and keep adding maps and singleplayer campaigns instead of dropping all my favorite maps each year. It's a big reason I no longer buy their titles regularly.
A bunch of online games have tried this, some of the most popular ones include World of Warcraft, Runescape and EVE Online. It works with these MMORPGs, but for other styles of games it doesn't work.
EA offers one called Origin Access, it offers last year's crappy titles for $5/mo. Sometimes some older good stuff too.
You also get early access to new stuff and a discount on new games, friends and I were buying it when Battlefield 1 got released because it was cheap enough that 1 month got you enough savings to make up the $5 price and got you into the beta.
Not a terrible model, but not something I'm excited to pay for in most cases.
You also get early access to new stuff and a discount on new games, friends and I were buying it when Battlefield 1 got released because it was cheap enough that 1 month got you enough savings to make up the $5 price and got you into the beta.
Not a terrible model, but not something I'm excited to pay for in most cases.
Maybe not on a monthly basis per-se, but there are AAA games doing "season passes" for content up front, then release DLC over time (which you can pay for individually).
A more direct comparison would be the various MMO games, some of which still do use a subscription model, though most have gone "free to play".
A more direct comparison would be the various MMO games, some of which still do use a subscription model, though most have gone "free to play".
Problem is lots of the DLC is not up to scratch! Fallout 4, I'm looking at you :(
[deleted]
PlanetSide used to be subscription based. PlanetSide 2 moved to in game purchases.
EA has, with Origin All Access.
I bought Arq backup software [1], and as far as I know they've been operating like this for years.
I also bought Moneydance [2], and it's also not a subscription model.
I also bought Moneydance [2], and it's also not a subscription model.
[1]: https://www.arqbackup.com/
[2]: http://moneydance.com/I'd argue that the only case where you need a subscription model to stay afloat is when you don't add enough value that your users will be willing to purchase an upgrade.
Windows obviously provides a good amount of value, but big upgrades are undermined by the need & expectation for ongoing regular updates, which means <Prior Version Latest Patch> is usually significantly better than <Prior Version RTM>
Windows obviously provides a good amount of value, but big upgrades are undermined by the need & expectation for ongoing regular updates, which means <Prior Version Latest Patch> is usually significantly better than <Prior Version RTM>
Capture One has a subscription model.
AVID has a subscription model.
AVID has a subscription model.
JetBrains used to have a better model where you paid and got 1 year of updates; then they tried to switch to subscription-only model and upset their individual users (though businesses loved it). After backslash they decided to do a hybrid - you pay yearly/monthly fee, have updates but once you stop you have to go back to the version you used a year ago. I am sure they'll try to phase this out at some point as well.
No. Just no. Charge a subscription if it's an ongoing service. If you're moving bits for me, running code on cloud for me on ongoing basis, charge me a subscription. If you gave me a binary to run, I pay you once. This is exactly why I shifted from Adobe to Affinity.
Comparing a pile of binary to Starbucks is less than stellar. Coffee is an ongoing service. You make coffee for me everyday, fresh. The cup does not last me years. There are a lot of things I pay for once in years, and it costs less than a fresh brew. A pen is a good example. A book is another. And frankly, a book is far more comparable to a copy of binary than Starbucks.
Unless the author buys a book and pays for it every month until he returns it, I won't take his word on selling binary. This advice will just lead to people reverse engineering your binaries and pirating it. Just ask Adobe.
Comparing a pile of binary to Starbucks is less than stellar. Coffee is an ongoing service. You make coffee for me everyday, fresh. The cup does not last me years. There are a lot of things I pay for once in years, and it costs less than a fresh brew. A pen is a good example. A book is another. And frankly, a book is far more comparable to a copy of binary than Starbucks.
Unless the author buys a book and pays for it every month until he returns it, I won't take his word on selling binary. This advice will just lead to people reverse engineering your binaries and pirating it. Just ask Adobe.
With your logic, you should pay for every new release. E.g. You bought the product at 1.0.5, you will pay for 1.0.6, 1.0.7, etc... IT IS am ongoing service. Development doesn't stop there. 1Password does this model; you have to pay for every major version of their product.
Adobe scored record profits as they switched to subscriptions so it might not be the best example.
For businesses subscriptions are better; for individual users worse. Why not cover both bases instead of force one way or the other?
For businesses subscriptions are better; for individual users worse. Why not cover both bases instead of force one way or the other?
That may be true, but it's difficult to separate that out from the other things that happened at the same time. They also started a cloud service for users and offered discounts on subscriptions. Who's to say that it wouldn't have worked out just as well if they made the cloud service and offered discounts on boxed copies of the software? Unfortunately, you can't do the experiment twice.
I am still running on CS6 so for me personally CC doesn't work ;-) I was willing to buy CS7 but it never happened.
[deleted]
Agreed. Any thing else is just greed.
Not going to happen. At least, not for me. $ per month is a financial and (perhaps more importantly) mental burden, and I'm certainly not going to have it hanging over my head over a text editor (or a text replacement utility, or a password manager). I'm usually not political in my software choices, but subscriptions make me see Stallman-red. If my favorite app goes subscription, I automatically move on to a competitor or (more likely) an open source alternative. Over time, I've realized that the only real way to guarantee longevity for your essential tools is to either use big-name products (Google, Apple, etc.) or to switch to open source alternatives. In the long run -- or even five years! -- subscriptions won't help your indie app survive.
I'm also a developer, and I hate subscriptions from that side too. I'm interested in making software, not providing personal support or maintaining servers. Most apps don't need to spend a decade in development; you're just finding new ways of burning valuable programming time. I prefer to release my software and move on while still providing occasional updates, making up for lost repeat business with a polyculture of products.
In my opinion, the way forward is to have a system for collectively funding open source projects of all sizes. Let the software be free, but fairly pay developers for their efforts. (Snowdrift[1] wants to do something like this, but I haven't seen much activity there in the past few years.) Most of my essential day-to-day software now is open source. We need the best talent, from code gurus to UI wizards, working on these applications, because I am convinced it will be the only software still standing a century down the line.
(In fairness, I think Standardnotes is doing it right. Their code is open source and you can host your own instance if you like. This does not apply to closed source software in the midst of the subscription craze like Ulysses, 1Password, TextExpander, etc.)
[1]: https://snowdrift.coop
I'm also a developer, and I hate subscriptions from that side too. I'm interested in making software, not providing personal support or maintaining servers. Most apps don't need to spend a decade in development; you're just finding new ways of burning valuable programming time. I prefer to release my software and move on while still providing occasional updates, making up for lost repeat business with a polyculture of products.
In my opinion, the way forward is to have a system for collectively funding open source projects of all sizes. Let the software be free, but fairly pay developers for their efforts. (Snowdrift[1] wants to do something like this, but I haven't seen much activity there in the past few years.) Most of my essential day-to-day software now is open source. We need the best talent, from code gurus to UI wizards, working on these applications, because I am convinced it will be the only software still standing a century down the line.
(In fairness, I think Standardnotes is doing it right. Their code is open source and you can host your own instance if you like. This does not apply to closed source software in the midst of the subscription craze like Ulysses, 1Password, TextExpander, etc.)
[1]: https://snowdrift.coop
I'm interested in making software, not providing personal support or maintaining servers...I prefer to release my software and move on while still releasing occasional updates, making up for lost repeat business with a polyculture of products.
What you basically just said was: I want to build products, not a business.
Ok, that's fine, but realize that's the freelancer's life, not someone who is actually trying to make a business around their product.
What you basically just said was: I want to build products, not a business.
Ok, that's fine, but realize that's the freelancer's life, not someone who is actually trying to make a business around their product.
Sure, agreed 100%. But I've also noticed that many products from "businesses, not product-builders" tend to start out cheery, then thrash around with new business models for a while, then ultimately die or get consumed by the big fish. In light of this, I think there should be more ways to collectively fund those derelict product-builders. Imagine if Inkscape got a few million to hire some talent, bringing it up to the quality level of e.g. Affinity Designer? Nobody would be using Illustrator in a few years!
If you want to make a business rather than a product then don't just slap a subscription model onto a product, but rather, work with an actual business idea.
> But when will we finally learn that the digital realm is real, if not realer, than the physical?
This is a silly statement since the digital depends on the physical for existence, and digital content only makes sense in the context of culture formed by flesh and blood human beings. A massive EMP pulse or collapse of civilization will show just how "real" the digital is.
This is a silly statement since the digital depends on the physical for existence, and digital content only makes sense in the context of culture formed by flesh and blood human beings. A massive EMP pulse or collapse of civilization will show just how "real" the digital is.
> This has all but confirmed a belief that I have long suspected:
> subscription is the only way to survive as a software company.
No, no, no -- not at all.
The subscription model may be the best way to thrive for certain kinds of software companies, at certain price points. But that doesn't make it a unilateral principle.
For software with one-time or fleeting value (e.g. games), a classic perpetual license (pay up front) is often the best.
For software with real upgrade value in releases (I'm NOT looking at you, Quicken), a perpetual + upgrade charge model may be the best fit. (Which is kind of like a subscription, but users pay when there's real value, not just elapsed time).
And there's the evolving new world of in-app purchases, add-ons and hybrids: for example, you might sell an app up front, but then charge monthly/yearly for a related cloud-based service that has ongoing value (such as backups).
No, no, no -- not at all.
The subscription model may be the best way to thrive for certain kinds of software companies, at certain price points. But that doesn't make it a unilateral principle.
For software with one-time or fleeting value (e.g. games), a classic perpetual license (pay up front) is often the best.
For software with real upgrade value in releases (I'm NOT looking at you, Quicken), a perpetual + upgrade charge model may be the best fit. (Which is kind of like a subscription, but users pay when there's real value, not just elapsed time).
And there's the evolving new world of in-app purchases, add-ons and hybrids: for example, you might sell an app up front, but then charge monthly/yearly for a related cloud-based service that has ongoing value (such as backups).
I can't help but feel companies take advantage of people not reading credit card statements (and forgetting they signed up for subscriptions). I don't get email payment receipts from Dropbox or Creative Cloud, I have to go digging in their websites to find them. There seems to be less accountability to develop new features...
Lightroom for example, it's still the 2015 version. Adobe doesn't seem too interested in modernizing it beyond adding some sync features. If they weren't doing the subscription thing they'd need to focus on it to make it innovative.
Lightroom for example, it's still the 2015 version. Adobe doesn't seem too interested in modernizing it beyond adding some sync features. If they weren't doing the subscription thing they'd need to focus on it to make it innovative.
To be fair, the Lightroom CC enhancements are mostly around mobile and online (which I don't care much about personally). Lightroom does seem to have stagnated a bit though I don't really have a list of new features that I really would like to see.
In any case, the fact that Lightroom is at least theoretically also still being sold as a standalone non-subscription product should increase the incentive to do a new feature-laden release, not decrease it.
In any case, the fact that Lightroom is at least theoretically also still being sold as a standalone non-subscription product should increase the incentive to do a new feature-laden release, not decrease it.
Come on! They can't be expected to keep working on it can they? I mean, they already sold you it. What fool would do that??
All of your complaints about how hard it is to make it as a developer are probably legitimate, but understand that there are 2 sides to every market.
It's highly unlikely your app provides enough value to be worth paying for every single month for most people.
Be honest, you've seen that the best way to monetize someone is to get them to pay you every month without thinking about it. This is we're bombarded with "first month's free, write to us via registered mail to cancel or you'll automatically be paying $100/month" offers. A subscription model is equivalent to a "I know a good number of people don't read their credit card statement every month and will forget to cancel" model.
And that's fine. Attempting to get more money from people who are rich enough to not need to read their credit card statement is probably a more honest way to live than monetizing customers via ads or in app purchases like the rest of the "unicorns".
[edit]
I would like to tone down one sentence. When I say "your" I'm actually not referring to the author of this article, instead I'm referring to "A developer who currently sells his/her app for a one time fee of 0.99-3.99".
It's highly unlikely your app provides enough value to be worth paying for every single month for most people.
Be honest, you've seen that the best way to monetize someone is to get them to pay you every month without thinking about it. This is we're bombarded with "first month's free, write to us via registered mail to cancel or you'll automatically be paying $100/month" offers. A subscription model is equivalent to a "I know a good number of people don't read their credit card statement every month and will forget to cancel" model.
And that's fine. Attempting to get more money from people who are rich enough to not need to read their credit card statement is probably a more honest way to live than monetizing customers via ads or in app purchases like the rest of the "unicorns".
[edit]
I would like to tone down one sentence. When I say "your" I'm actually not referring to the author of this article, instead I'm referring to "A developer who currently sells his/her app for a one time fee of 0.99-3.99".
Subscriptions only works with business users.
Outside some outliers like Office and anti-virus, the majority of consumers won't buy into subscriptions for software, they would rather pirate it.
Outside some outliers like Office and anti-virus, the majority of consumers won't buy into subscriptions for software, they would rather pirate it.
Piracy is probably the main reason why software developers are finding more success with shipping subscription based software. Most (prospective) users will indeed not subscribe, but you will probably still catch a significant portion of users that would have pirated instead if they had the chance.
See what Spotify (and other streaming services) did to illegal downloading for instance.
See what Spotify (and other streaming services) did to illegal downloading for instance.
Well, spotify isn't offering unique product. They are just offering convenience to what is already in the world.
Yeah, too bad most companies only value business users tho.
Office is only "successful" at using the subscription model because Microsoft has eliminated other options.
This is false. All of the existing full retail options are still available. (In physical stores, cards for each are sold on the same rack.) Office 365 is cheaper on a year-one purchase and can include multiple PCs in a single license, but ends up costlier over time due to renewals.
I believe it is somewhere around
Office 365 Personal (1 PC) - $69.99/yr
Office 365 Home (3 PCs) - $99.99/yr
Office 2016 Home (1 PC) - $149.99/forever
I believe it is somewhere around
Office 365 Personal (1 PC) - $69.99/yr
Office 365 Home (3 PCs) - $99.99/yr
Office 2016 Home (1 PC) - $149.99/forever
As more and more software has moved to app stores & web apps, I think piracy rates for software have plummeted, simply because it's so much harder.
I don't think subscriptions are always negative for consumers; Adobe is probably the poster child here because $800 is a huge price to pay to just try things out, but $20/month is something you can try out, and people keep paying for it because they can't go without it.
I think honest subscription pricing like that can work great if your software is something you expect the user to use and gain value from repeatedly.
While some people would say Spotify is a content business, which is why it can charge a subscription, I think the fact that users keep getting value from it is the more important fact.
I don't think subscriptions are always negative for consumers; Adobe is probably the poster child here because $800 is a huge price to pay to just try things out, but $20/month is something you can try out, and people keep paying for it because they can't go without it.
I think honest subscription pricing like that can work great if your software is something you expect the user to use and gain value from repeatedly.
While some people would say Spotify is a content business, which is why it can charge a subscription, I think the fact that users keep getting value from it is the more important fact.
>As more and more software has moved to app stores & web apps, I think piracy rates for software have plummeted, simply because it's so much harder.
It's harder and there are also a lot of free/cheap alternatives out there. If you need a spreadsheet now and then, today it's not a choice between dropping a few hundred dollars, doing without, or pirating a copy of Lotus 1-2-3.
(And, with some exceptions--probably most notably Adobe--even most of the market-leading products that consumers would probably want are relatively cheaper than they used to be.)
It's harder and there are also a lot of free/cheap alternatives out there. If you need a spreadsheet now and then, today it's not a choice between dropping a few hundred dollars, doing without, or pirating a copy of Lotus 1-2-3.
(And, with some exceptions--probably most notably Adobe--even most of the market-leading products that consumers would probably want are relatively cheaper than they used to be.)
I have the theory that piracy has plummeted because it is more and more dangerous to install software infected with malware on computers that you might also use for buying with your credit card, entering your bank, etc. The last thing you want is the annoyance to have your computer cryptolocked just to skip paying a few bucks.
Piracy on iOS is the main reason why most consumers root their iPhones.
I think you greatly overestimate the number of people who root their iPhones; using numbers from Cydia you get about 0.4% of people with jailbroken iPhones: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-iPhones-have-been-j...
Even if you assume it's 10x larger than that number for whatever reason, you're still only at 4% of users.
Even if you assume it's 10x larger than that number for whatever reason, you're still only at 4% of users.
I don't know about numbers, but I know it is quite common in southern and east european countries.
Then there are the Android and WP sideloaders as well.
Then there are the Android and WP sideloaders as well.
I can see both sides of that coin.
Yes, the thought of adding another recurring subscription can be a barrier. But I think people are becoming increasingly more comfortable with that (Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc, etc, have all opened that door).
And when you get into the more expensive software, I would imagine that the subscription model makes it a lot more accessible and increases the number of people actually paying.
Previously, I'd have had to pay $230 for Microsoft Office and $1300 for the Adobe "Design Standard" collection. $1,530 to get up and running is something no non-business user is ever going to swallow. Even if I plan to make money off of the software, $1530 is just a lot of money to come up with at one time.
Under the subscription model, you're just agreeing to have $60 charged to your credit card every month. Anyone who actually needs the software probably won't think twice about that.
Yes, the thought of adding another recurring subscription can be a barrier. But I think people are becoming increasingly more comfortable with that (Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc, etc, have all opened that door).
And when you get into the more expensive software, I would imagine that the subscription model makes it a lot more accessible and increases the number of people actually paying.
Previously, I'd have had to pay $230 for Microsoft Office and $1300 for the Adobe "Design Standard" collection. $1,530 to get up and running is something no non-business user is ever going to swallow. Even if I plan to make money off of the software, $1530 is just a lot of money to come up with at one time.
Under the subscription model, you're just agreeing to have $60 charged to your credit card every month. Anyone who actually needs the software probably won't think twice about that.
I don't know. I used to make money off of Photoshop and was happy to pay the up-front fee. It's no longer a money-maker for me, but I still have and use CS5. I think it's been something like 5 or 6 years and I haven't needed any of the new features since then. If I were still making money at it, then yeah, it might be worth it. But it's nice to know that if cashflow gets tight, I don't have to keep paying a fee. I can stay at the version I have now and continue to do the same work (and continue to be able to open my own goddamn files!) without paying anyone. Being stuck with a product that won't work if I'm offline for 30 days (say I'm on assignment is a 3rd world country. What then?), or if my connection goes down or their company folds, or their server is attacked at a time that's critical for my business, is unacceptable.
"Consider the nonsensical way software is currently done: developers spend endless hours researching, developing, fixing, and providing support for software, the hardest of which is probably the last of that array of responsibilities. "
None of which matters. Only capitalism and consumer demand for your service.
None of which matters. Only capitalism and consumer demand for your service.
consider if Starbucks customers visited the store only once every 10 years to buy a single cup of coffee? How soon do you imagine they’d go out of business?
Imagine if one cup of coffee "worked" for ten years, how much you'd care if Starbucks went out of business?
Consumers aren't there as a substitute welfare state to provide eternal employment for hungry programmers.
Nobody pays a subscription to an author instead of buying a book. "Oh they rewrote chapter one?"
It's just a case of holding information hostage in the cloud because you can.
[Stallmanning intensifies]
Imagine if one cup of coffee "worked" for ten years, how much you'd care if Starbucks went out of business?
Consumers aren't there as a substitute welfare state to provide eternal employment for hungry programmers.
Nobody pays a subscription to an author instead of buying a book. "Oh they rewrote chapter one?"
It's just a case of holding information hostage in the cloud because you can.
[Stallmanning intensifies]
Indeed. I just unsubscribed from Adobe's online Photoshop offering because I don't use it enough to pay $10/mo every month. Instead, I went looking around and found a great alternative with a set price...
And then I decided not to buy that until I actually needed it.
Once I needed something for simple image work, I ended up downloading Krita for free and it works just fine. I may still buy the other software, but not until Krita can't do what I need. (To be fair, the other software looks amazing... But so is Photoshop, if you use it daily. Which I don't.)
And then I decided not to buy that until I actually needed it.
Once I needed something for simple image work, I ended up downloading Krita for free and it works just fine. I may still buy the other software, but not until Krita can't do what I need. (To be fair, the other software looks amazing... But so is Photoshop, if you use it daily. Which I don't.)
Yeah, this is just a bunch of "why should I charge a little when I can charge a lot?".
I don't know, people spent a bunch of man-years making my washing machine, but I don't pay a subscription on it.
If the choice is between $120 up-front or $5 a month, maybe it's worth it (e.g. maybe paying $8/mo is better than paying however much for Photoshop+Lightroom), but I have a feeling that this developer is talking about $2 up-front or $5/mo.
I don't know, people spent a bunch of man-years making my washing machine, but I don't pay a subscription on it.
If the choice is between $120 up-front or $5 a month, maybe it's worth it (e.g. maybe paying $8/mo is better than paying however much for Photoshop+Lightroom), but I have a feeling that this developer is talking about $2 up-front or $5/mo.
> I don't know, people spent a bunch of man-years making my washing machine, but I don't pay a subscription on it.
You pay a subscription for the detergent.
Hardware is the washing machine; software is the detergent.
You pay a subscription for the detergent.
Hardware is the washing machine; software is the detergent.
Detergent is a consumable, and typically not made by the same company that made the washing machine. Nonsense analogy. Even without a washing machine you'd use soap.
In the case of a washing machine, they design the unit to stop functioning in the near future, sell you a limited warranty, and then frequently try to sell you an extended warranty. It's different, but yes, things are dressed up to extract the most they can from a customer.
And it doesn't work. I moved into a new house and the relatively new LG refrigerator stopped working 2 days later. The repair person said the compressor had died and it would cost $1,000 to fix. We opted to buy a new refrigerator and completely avoided anything made by LG.
The other appliances in the house are LG, too. I believe the previous owners were in the house for ~5 years so I don't think any of the appliances are older than that. If any of them breaks in the next few years, they will be replaced with different brands.
The other appliances in the house are LG, too. I believe the previous owners were in the house for ~5 years so I don't think any of the appliances are older than that. If any of them breaks in the next few years, they will be replaced with different brands.
>they design the unit to stop functioning in the near future
I don't believe anything is "designed" to stop functioning. That's just a happy accident that results from cost cutting measures in the manufacturing process.
I don't believe anything is "designed" to stop functioning. That's just a happy accident that results from cost cutting measures in the manufacturing process.
Ok, maybe it's arrived at via an evolutionary process then - with selection being provided by stakeholders. The outcome is however the same.
> Consumers aren't there as a substitute welfare state to provide eternal employment for hungry programmers.
The flip side to this argument is that programmers aren't obligated to continue fixing bugs and adding features to software forever if they aren't being paid. Software subscriptions are the only way I know of to align the incentives properly so that programmers will actually fix things instead of moving on to an entirely new piece of software that they can sell anew and leave the old one to rot, which is a real problem that has plagued small dev shops forever.
The flip side to this argument is that programmers aren't obligated to continue fixing bugs and adding features to software forever if they aren't being paid. Software subscriptions are the only way I know of to align the incentives properly so that programmers will actually fix things instead of moving on to an entirely new piece of software that they can sell anew and leave the old one to rot, which is a real problem that has plagued small dev shops forever.
Yes. Historically, it was very common for the stock response for bugs to be "It's fixed in the next version." There was a very strong incentive for companies to force buyers (especially those who weren't on maintenance contracts) to upgrade as frequently as possible. In part for supportability reasons, vendors still cut off support for old versions at some point, but from a revenue perspective, subscriptions get rid of much of the reason to force upgrades.
Back in the day fixing bugs meant buying the next version, with a possible discount for being an existing customer.
Software companies used to survive through maintenance contracts for enterprise software and upgrades for consumer software. With the Apple App Store model, all upgrades are required to be free. This of course took a huge chunk of revenue away from software shops.
>It's just a case of holding information hostage in the cloud because you can.
Or because they have to.
>Consumers aren't there as a substitute welfare state to provide eternal employment for hungry programmers.
Software is expensive. Developers are expensive. I much prefer the upgrade model to the subscription model, but the marketplace in a round about way, decided it would rather pay eternally rather than one version at a time.
Photoshop use to cost around $800 for a license, now it's $20 a month. That works out to 3.33 years until you pay as much as an outright license. I'm fairly certain that the Photoshop upgrade schedule was shorter than 3.33 years, so in the end, you end up paying less, assuming you constantly upgraded.
*The upgrade prices was usually cheaper than the original full license, but I don't know how that works out long term with the subscription model.
>It's just a case of holding information hostage in the cloud because you can.
Or because they have to.
>Consumers aren't there as a substitute welfare state to provide eternal employment for hungry programmers.
Software is expensive. Developers are expensive. I much prefer the upgrade model to the subscription model, but the marketplace in a round about way, decided it would rather pay eternally rather than one version at a time.
Photoshop use to cost around $800 for a license, now it's $20 a month. That works out to 3.33 years until you pay as much as an outright license. I'm fairly certain that the Photoshop upgrade schedule was shorter than 3.33 years, so in the end, you end up paying less, assuming you constantly upgraded.
*The upgrade prices was usually cheaper than the original full license, but I don't know how that works out long term with the subscription model.
> With the Apple App Store model, all upgrades are required to be free.
That's not true at all. You can, at any time, take your FooSoftware 1.x off the store and make a new product called FooSoftware 2.x and charge the new price for it.
That's not true at all. You can, at any time, take your FooSoftware 1.x off the store and make a new product called FooSoftware 2.x and charge the new price for it.
Yes, but that's a workaround. All the effort you put into marketing an app called "FooTime" is now devalued because the actual app name is now "FooTime2" Furthermore, if you remove "FooTime" from the store, there are now a bunch of dead links.
With Adobe CC it really depends on what combination of software you had and how often you updated. AFAIK, if you bought only one or two applications and skipped every other version, CC is basically always more expensive. (update prices were a lot lower than full, and upgraded the second-to-last version as well (and in the beginning, even more))
If you bought the larger bundles and/or want to keep it up-to-date all the time, CC pricing generally is similar or cheaper.
If you bought the larger bundles and/or want to keep it up-to-date all the time, CC pricing generally is similar or cheaper.
Subscription is a reasonable model for software that's part of your core workflows and that you probably want to be current on in any case. If you're a graphic professional, Adobe Creative Cloud is mostly a reasonable deal.
If you dust off Photoshop Elements a few times a year? Not so much.
Similarly, with a few exceptions, subscribing to something like a game doesn't really make sense for a buyer. It would be like subscribing to a movie or, as you say, a book. I'm probably going to play it once (or even a few times) and it's going to sit unused.
The flip side of the author's premise is that subscribing to something, even for a very low price, is generally a much higher bar to me than taking a flyer on something at $5-$10. Yes, there's some combination of subscription price vs. purchase price where I'd view the subscription as lower risk but I tend to be pretty conservative about opening up monthly money leaks.
If you dust off Photoshop Elements a few times a year? Not so much.
Similarly, with a few exceptions, subscribing to something like a game doesn't really make sense for a buyer. It would be like subscribing to a movie or, as you say, a book. I'm probably going to play it once (or even a few times) and it's going to sit unused.
The flip side of the author's premise is that subscribing to something, even for a very low price, is generally a much higher bar to me than taking a flyer on something at $5-$10. Yes, there's some combination of subscription price vs. purchase price where I'd view the subscription as lower risk but I tend to be pretty conservative about opening up monthly money leaks.
Imagine if one cup of coffee "worked" for ten years, how much you'd care if Starbucks went out of business?
Excluding the most robust embedded systems on spacecraft and nuclear submarines, I don't know any software especially consumer software that would last 10 years without revision.
Maybe a better analogy is having an unlimited refill.
Excluding the most robust embedded systems on spacecraft and nuclear submarines, I don't know any software especially consumer software that would last 10 years without revision.
Maybe a better analogy is having an unlimited refill.
I use software I bought 10 years ago. It works as well as it did in 2006. (Edit: to be fair, I’ve checked and while I bought it in 2007 I paid for maintenance for a while and I upgraded the software in 2010. Anyway, that’s over 7 years ago.)
I think free vs one-time vs subscription depends heavily on the product/service being offered. I am of the belief that a recurring subscription should provide something meaningful that can't realistically be done on my machine(s) or requires ongoing research, data, etc. For example, I see no justifiable reason for Adobe's decision to go the subscription route. Software like Adobe offers has clear features that are unique to each version. As they build the feature set they also work to ensure compatibility with the modern operating systems and platforms. A customer pays for the version they need at the time. Should their needs grow or they require support for a modern OS that their existing product version doesn't support, then they should pay for the upgrade. If not, why would they continually shell out money on features and support they do not require? On the flip side, data hosting services are the exact opposite. A monthly fee for ongoing storage is the only thing that makes sense. Similarly, a website that maintains a searchable database of retail product information for internet vendors/sellers to use requires constant maintenance and that also justifies a subscription model.
One other thought - the whole app game is basically one of trying to hit it big and getting hundreds of thousands of users so you can either reap the rewards from recurring advertising revenues or the one-time purchase fees. Articles like this exist because app stores are overcrowded with choices and they usually don't tend to fan out evenly in terms of users. Usually there are 1-3 that are heavily used with the rest just being noise in the competition for that type of app. Those publishers get the lion's share of the revenue for their specific app type.
One other thought - the whole app game is basically one of trying to hit it big and getting hundreds of thousands of users so you can either reap the rewards from recurring advertising revenues or the one-time purchase fees. Articles like this exist because app stores are overcrowded with choices and they usually don't tend to fan out evenly in terms of users. Usually there are 1-3 that are heavily used with the rest just being noise in the competition for that type of app. Those publishers get the lion's share of the revenue for their specific app type.
Yes and no.
I am doing quite well with my app http://www.ghostnoteapp.com which is a one of purchase.
However I am exploring various services around. At the end of the day though I want people to be able to buy it as a stand alone and then if they feel like they need it and I need to use some sort of server storage/activity I will charge for it.
Already working on one subscription service.
I am doing quite well with my app http://www.ghostnoteapp.com which is a one of purchase.
However I am exploring various services around. At the end of the day though I want people to be able to buy it as a stand alone and then if they feel like they need it and I need to use some sort of server storage/activity I will charge for it.
Already working on one subscription service.
Do individual users with one-off and businesses with subscription. Don't force either. For businesses stability and the fact that the SW is supported matters. For users the cognitive load of not needing to pay another tax on SW that is used from time to time matters.
Thats actually a really good point, food forthough. Thanks for that.
We've been selling B2B desktop software on a subscription basis since we started 5 years ago. Previously it was freeware.
One of the things that I like most is that entitling all your user base to your latest and greatest version software makes many users install the latest version, which is what also happens with freeware. The lack of need to support older versions greatly simplifies support.
Also a good thing of subscriptions is that because the monetary incentive of acquiring a new user is exactly the same as having an existing customer renew, you do not start adding features just for the sake of justifying a major paid upgrade.
One of the things that I like most is that entitling all your user base to your latest and greatest version software makes many users install the latest version, which is what also happens with freeware. The lack of need to support older versions greatly simplifies support.
Also a good thing of subscriptions is that because the monetary incentive of acquiring a new user is exactly the same as having an existing customer renew, you do not start adding features just for the sake of justifying a major paid upgrade.
There are two different behavioral models for customer and enterprise software:
Buyers of consumer software want to own it. They use it for own benefit and it frequently has short lifespan. That's why they don't like subscriptions.
Buyers of enterprise software want to create added value from it, so it's not about owning it's about leveraging. Like with any other business expenses, software expenses don't really matter as long as they generate more value than cost. Also, subscription model suits corporate better as it doesn't require pulling large amounts of money out from working capital.
Buyers of consumer software want to own it. They use it for own benefit and it frequently has short lifespan. That's why they don't like subscriptions.
Buyers of enterprise software want to create added value from it, so it's not about owning it's about leveraging. Like with any other business expenses, software expenses don't really matter as long as they generate more value than cost. Also, subscription model suits corporate better as it doesn't require pulling large amounts of money out from working capital.
> Businesses can only survive if people have to pay for the same products over and over again, or if they break frequently enough that people have to rebuy them constantly
That's basically the thesis.
And that's bullshit. If I buy something, I want it to work for eternity. The subscription model costs a massive amount of money for the customer, and is just further rent-seeking, bankrupting customers and transferring wealth.
No thanks.
If you want me to pay continually money, you should continually provide something in return for that. Just to continue using something I already paid for is not a good enough justification.
That's basically the thesis.
And that's bullshit. If I buy something, I want it to work for eternity. The subscription model costs a massive amount of money for the customer, and is just further rent-seeking, bankrupting customers and transferring wealth.
No thanks.
If you want me to pay continually money, you should continually provide something in return for that. Just to continue using something I already paid for is not a good enough justification.
If I buy something, I want it to work for eternity
Of course, they can sell a new version optimized for a different environment.
And I can emulate the old environment.
And of course I am okay with MMORPGs or cloud services charging continually, as they have server costs.
But I don't want to pay just to keep using a product I already paid for.
And I can emulate the old environment.
And of course I am okay with MMORPGs or cloud services charging continually, as they have server costs.
But I don't want to pay just to keep using a product I already paid for.
Yes, it's totally rent-seeking. And this is what destroys economies:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nobel-economist-takes-aim-a...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nobel-economist-takes-aim-a...
The current status quo for consumers is software should be free. Changing that is going to be very, very tough.
i remember back when my dad bought lotus 123 for like $60 at the local store. that was a fair value
i think the app store and ad-supported software really devalued a lot of forms of software for most lay people. my wife still gasps when i spend a buck on software
i think the app store and ad-supported software really devalued a lot of forms of software for most lay people. my wife still gasps when i spend a buck on software
Just looked at a random PC Magazine from the mid-eighties. Lotus 1-2-3 was $319, which is about $700 in today's money. And that was by no means an outlier. A lot of PC software used to be very expensive.
And the status quo for developer pay should be zero as well. All they do is type stuff that gets turned into zeros and ones. /s
I refuse to pay a subscription for software. If you want recurring money from me, sell new versions that have things I want. (I do not buy new versions of Microsoft Office, because repainting the same thing and adding features I don't use anyways isn't worth money to me.)
Mandating that my software stops working unless I pay more for it is a surefire way to make me go somewhere else for software.
I used to buy Adobe Photoshop, and have since moved to Affinity Photo ($50, one-time, does everything I used Photoshop for) since they moved to subscription-only. I outright will never have "Office 365", and strongly recommend to anyone who asks to buy the full retail editions instead. If Microsoft ever switches to 365-only, no big deal, open source software is more than adequate in this area.
Mandating that my software stops working unless I pay more for it is a surefire way to make me go somewhere else for software.
I used to buy Adobe Photoshop, and have since moved to Affinity Photo ($50, one-time, does everything I used Photoshop for) since they moved to subscription-only. I outright will never have "Office 365", and strongly recommend to anyone who asks to buy the full retail editions instead. If Microsoft ever switches to 365-only, no big deal, open source software is more than adequate in this area.
I refuse to pay a subscription for software. If you want recurring money from me, sell new versions that have things I want.
Do you want your old software to keep working with new OS upgrades? In the case of iOS:
- If you bought an app that was created before the iPhone 4, do you want higher resolution images?
- If you bought an app that was created before the iPhone 5 do you want the app to take advantage of the full display?
--If you bought an app before the 5s that was 32 bit, do you want the app to keep working with iOS 11?
--If you bought an iPad app do you want it to take advantage of larger iPad sizes? The new multitasking features? The new drag and drop features?
Either you pay a subscription or you pay for new versions.
Do you want your old software to keep working with new OS upgrades? In the case of iOS:
- If you bought an app that was created before the iPhone 4, do you want higher resolution images?
- If you bought an app that was created before the iPhone 5 do you want the app to take advantage of the full display?
--If you bought an app before the 5s that was 32 bit, do you want the app to keep working with iOS 11?
--If you bought an iPad app do you want it to take advantage of larger iPad sizes? The new multitasking features? The new drag and drop features?
Either you pay a subscription or you pay for new versions.
I am entirely okay with paying for new versions, especially if they are updated to take advantage of new features or support for new devices.
I agree with you entirely. I will pretty much never pay any subscription. I was even happy to throw my 1999-2011 Adobe Suite bread and butter in the bin over the cloud thing. It just doesn't work for me. It is indeed a complete mugs game.
I have to buy a new phone to get Android updates.
Used to buy new phones to get Series 30, Series 40 and Symbian updates as well.
Used to buy new phones to get Series 30, Series 40 and Symbian updates as well.
Do you think that's the way things should be? When iOS 11 comes out in September it will support all 64 bit iPhones starting with the 5s that was introduced in September 2013. By the time iOS 12 comes out next year, it would have been supported for 5 years with OS updates.
With the price of iPhone I can buy 3 good quality Android devices.
No, it is not how things should be.
We should be able to get at least security updates during the warranty period (2 years in Europe) and no mobile phone should cost more than a laptop/desktop system.
No, it is not how things should be.
We should be able to get at least security updates during the warranty period (2 years in Europe) and no mobile phone should cost more than a laptop/desktop system.
I don't know, this sounds really silly. It's better to raise purchase prices; of course nobody would make living off $0.99 apps. But how many people would be willing to pay you a recurrent tax on your software either? Very few. How many apps would you be willing to keep if you needed to pay subscription? Yes, there was a race to the bottom in mobile apps, as the space was pretty new and trivial apps were feasible; for those it worked very well. The situation is different, ad revenue is falling and one-off prices are too low. Just increase them then!
Yes, please. I was happy to see Ulysses switch to subscription-based pricing and I would be happy to see other apps I use do the same thing (Yep, for example).
These are apps that I use every day. I need them to work. I don't need new fancy flashy features that bring in new users. I need reliability, maintenance, minor improvements, constant optimizations. This is not possible without subscriptions.
I'd much rather pay regularly for a small number of good, well-maintained apps, than have hundreds of crappy cheap one-shot apps that get released and then slowly fall into disrepair.
These are apps that I use every day. I need them to work. I don't need new fancy flashy features that bring in new users. I need reliability, maintenance, minor improvements, constant optimizations. This is not possible without subscriptions.
I'd much rather pay regularly for a small number of good, well-maintained apps, than have hundreds of crappy cheap one-shot apps that get released and then slowly fall into disrepair.
Subscription is the best way for companies to do software in capitalism. Take Microsoft Word 2003: perfectly good word processor, still works fine. I've spent 60$ 14 years ago and had no intention to switch.
But Microsoft needs money, so they force the upgrade to 2007 by, among other things, inventing the docx format. And then 2010, and then 2013, and then 2017. Logical conclusion is Office 365, where you are forced to pay 100$ every year.
Is it a stable source of income for the company, better, than selling box copies? Yes. Is it in customer's best interests? No.
But Microsoft needs money, so they force the upgrade to 2007 by, among other things, inventing the docx format. And then 2010, and then 2013, and then 2017. Logical conclusion is Office 365, where you are forced to pay 100$ every year.
Is it a stable source of income for the company, better, than selling box copies? Yes. Is it in customer's best interests? No.
If you believe this, then I'll let you know that there are exactly two ways that I'll pay a subscription fee for your software (generally, not aimed at author):
1. It is providing a service (Spotify).
2. It is open source.
You might not want to try to or know how to monetize the second option, but I'm not paying you a monthly fee for closed source software that you or your company are going to inevitably neglect/abandon/sell to someone who cares even less.
I'm happy to pay a monthly fee so you can make your open software better, though.
Welcome to the way this was always going to play out; the only way it could have played out.
Indeed.
1. It is providing a service (Spotify).
2. It is open source.
You might not want to try to or know how to monetize the second option, but I'm not paying you a monthly fee for closed source software that you or your company are going to inevitably neglect/abandon/sell to someone who cares even less.
I'm happy to pay a monthly fee so you can make your open software better, though.
Welcome to the way this was always going to play out; the only way it could have played out.
Indeed.
Standard Note, which the author is talking about, is open-source btw.
Apparently you can self-host Standard File server [1] yourself if you don't want to sync with their server.
Apparently you can self-host Standard File server [1] yourself if you don't want to sync with their server.
[1]: https://github.com/standardfile>
You might not want to try to or know how to monetize the second option, but I'm not paying you a monthly fee for closed source software that you or your company are going to inevitably neglect/abandon/sell to someone who cares even less.
I am, sometimes it is just the best choice in an imperfect world. Of course I would prefer to pay for open source but no such offers exist.
I am, sometimes it is just the best choice in an imperfect world. Of course I would prefer to pay for open source but no such offers exist.
> It is providing a service (Spotify)
How are you defining what is and isn't a service independent of pricing frequency?
How are you defining what is and isn't a service independent of pricing frequency?
Does it create recurring costs for the developer, or is it something where the costs are single-time?
I won't pay subscription for a software I install locally with no online features that never gets updates and has no support. (Even though Adobe thinks I should)
I won't pay subscription for a software I install locally with no online features that never gets updates and has no support. (Even though Adobe thinks I should)
I think the distinction is something that needs an external third party server to run (streaming, games that use dedicated servers etc) compared to something that's possible to use locally or with your own network.
I don't get #1. Is there a software that doesn't provide a service? Outlook, word, quicken, Norton, all of these are services.
As an aside, it makes me wonder if pay-per-document could work as well. I'm sure that's been tried before
As an aside, it makes me wonder if pay-per-document could work as well. I'm sure that's been tried before
Maybe Spotify is too narrow, but that's what meant to get at. Don't mind paying monthly for Spotify because you aren't really paying for the software, you are paying for the the content which really can't be had without cost.
Well if your argument is that software can be had (copied) without cost, the same is true of music...
Spotify is a lot cheaper than buying all the music in their catalog, and they have necessary ongoing costs to operate the infrastructure providing it, which provides me with a direct value (unlike e.g. slapping cloud sync onto an app where I don't want it, which seems to be a common pattern in the mobile app world)
A comparable offer might be $x/month for access to all one-time-fee apps in an app store.
A comparable offer might be $x/month for access to all one-time-fee apps in an app store.
I've had an idea in the back of my head for a while, that micropayments (and maybe blockchains by extension) might have an answer to this. What if installing software was free, but you paid a fraction of a penny for every minute/hour that you run it? Right now this isn't practical, but what if the friction around payments was able to drop to near zero?
It exists in the SaaS world. For example, charges based on volume for field marketing campaigns. And, of course, most of AWS is pay-per-use (either time or amount).
It's probably not more widely used even in the SaaS world because people generally don't like the thought of there being a meter ticking while they're using something. Which in turn discourages use and that in turn means that users don't get as much value out of a product or service than they otherwise would.
It's probably not more widely used even in the SaaS world because people generally don't like the thought of there being a meter ticking while they're using something. Which in turn discourages use and that in turn means that users don't get as much value out of a product or service than they otherwise would.
Pay while it runs, you say?
sleep(500);
Say again?
sleep(500);
Takes twenty seconds to load? I'll look into it. Just enable debug logging, +10% runtime overhead...
sleep(500);
Say again?
sleep(500);
Takes twenty seconds to load? I'll look into it. Just enable debug logging, +10% runtime overhead...
This is a glorified ad! Shame on you!
I guess I'll be buying a lot less software.
ze
The thing to do with articles you feel don't belong on Hacker News is to flag them. The name calling and gratuitous negativity are against the guidelines and end up discouraging submitters who might have something on-topic to share, and we don't want to miss those.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
please delete my account here.
Are there any HN extensions/plugins that allow you to tag users? I can tag garbage authors on Reddit with RES so I know to avoid their articles, it'd be handy to do the same on HN.
There are no rules against submitting your own blog posts. As we know, it's quite common on HN. Though I have noticed personally that my blog posts get more activity here when submitted by others.
There are also no rules against plugging a product in a post. Again, it's extremely common on HN.
OP's user account was created 1339 days ago. I don't think his intention is suddenly to spam at all nor do I believe the post is "just a spam piece to advertise his app".
There are also no rules against plugging a product in a post. Again, it's extremely common on HN.
OP's user account was created 1339 days ago. I don't think his intention is suddenly to spam at all nor do I believe the post is "just a spam piece to advertise his app".
[deleted]
My advice is that don't try to push the subscription model everywhere. For some things it simply doesn't work that well and you might make better buck by just selling packages.