undefined

points

[-]

Software was always a subscription you bought version two then version three... It wasn't obviously or explicitly a subscription but it still was one.

by jbstack8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That isn't the same thing at all.

If I buy version 2 then it's mine and I can continue to use it for as long as I want, if I'm happy with the feature set. I can ignore version 3 or choose to buy it. If I buy it then I now own two products instead of one. Sometimes the older version might even be better (e.g. features I like have been removed or made worse).

With a subscription model I'm forced to pay again and again even if I'm perfectly happy with version 2.

by bluGill7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

In theory you are correct but realistically you will upgrade.

by abanana6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This is betraying a way of thinking that suggests what's normal now is the way it's always been.

Given "there was a time that subscriptions for software were virtually unheard of", it's safe to assume we're talking about more than a couple of years ago. To talk as if most users always used to upgrade, suggests you might be young enough not to remember the software industry before a decade or two ago.

In general, users very much didn't upgrade. That's exactly why the industry forced subscriptions on us. They weren't getting income anymore, when the older version of their software did the job perfectly well.

by bluGill5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm old enough to remember that time. People did up grade. Some of them rushed out to buy the latest version when it was released. Some of them waited until they got a new computer. Many of them tried to not upgrade until someone using the new version sent them a file and then they couldn't open it thus forcing an upgrade. A few only upgraded every other version.

I wasn't an automatic everybody upgraded on day one like subscriptions are, but it amounted to similar: regular upgrades over time.

by GrinningFool7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

The difference is without subscription, I can be pretty sure the next major version will benefit me.

With subscription,the only thing certain is that the seller wants to do as little as possible to keep taking my money. This tends to result on product updates that benefit them.

by Analemma_1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This kind of shoddy, surface-level "incentives alignment" analysis can just as easily be used to prove the opposite: with the "pay once, then pay for upgrades" model, sellers are incentivized to never actually fix all the bugs so that you are always forced to buy the next version.

by bluGill6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Except in the case of a natural monopoly (which doesn't apply to software) you can always switch to something else. Which means the seller needs to remain better than the alternatives.

by GrinningFool3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You underestimate inertia, and the fact that the industry has trained people that they must pay continually. On top of that, the common practice is to make it sufficiently hard to get your data out of your system and into the competition's - even when there's reasonably priced competition it does a great job at adding to inertia.

by feoren3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> there are plenty of software developers who offer lifetime purchases. In fact there was a time that subscriptions for software were virtually unheard of.

There's a big difference between software you buy, run on your computer, and don't expect to be constantly updated, vs. an online service that you expect to stay up and serve you new content forever. In the latter case, if a customer drops off after 24 months, that lowers your costs. You can't reasonably charge a user for the number of months they could potentially remain subscribed.