> Both the desktop and web app don't and will not require a commercial license for both personal usage and company usage, as long as if the data are stored locally and doesn't use our server.
> I see this comment or some variation of it every time a new product is shared here that has such a model.
I observe something similar, but we seem to have drawn different conclusions.
> What I rarely if ever see is a proposal for how the developer should make money instead of a subscription.
At the risk of sounding trite, I think people who find subscriptions unpalatable would be happy with anything that isn't a subscription. These could be offered in parallel, so subscription-averse consumers have an alternative to evaluate.
A one-off payment is the obvious and most simple choice -- wrap some limits or caveats around data / transit usage if needed. Freemium option may work in some cases (I think there's sufficient successful examples to validate this as viable). (Only) enterprise users pay. Tier the offerings to protect yourself from the heavy eaters.
I don't think expressing fatigue at the relentlessness of subscription-ONLY services is invalid.
I think a one time payment is great when you’re selling a standalone app, but for online services, I don’t think there are many options beyond a subscription or possibly some kind of pay-as-you-go model, the latter of which has a whole host of other issues.
I don’t think it’s invalid to express fatigue at the model, but as feedback on a specific app/service here, it’s a bit tired without at least some kind of suggested alternative.
And truly I get it - I too have far too many subscriptions to things, but putting myself into the devs shoes, I get why it’s a prevailing approach these days.
One-time payments for Apps are a lie we tell ourselves anyway. There will always be another version, and the new version with have that feature we need (or support for new hardware).
Like you, I find the attitude about subscriptions frustrating. "Wants to be paid but doesn't want to pay". And yes, it's possible that the person objecting lives outside capitalist society and contributes an enormous volume to open source (or other volunteering), but statistically less likely.
I can see the benefit of bundling (e.g. Setapp), so that you're not killed by a million tiny subscriptions, but people need to be paid for their work, so one way or another money needs to flow to the creator.
That's poor evidence, considering some of the first movers to this new model were people who ensured their services were going to be used irrespective of what their pricing model was, and then everyone else following without providing an alternative. Where's a consumer to go?
What else could prefer mean in this case other than that people are willing to pay more money when it’s a subscription?
Of course people rather pay $10 x 1 than $10 x some number greater than 1. They rather pay $10x1 than $100x1 as well. All else being equal people prefer to pay less for things.
When more are willing to pay $10x20 than $100x1 I don’t know what you’d call that other than expressing a preference.
For example, people complained very loudly about not being able to buy photoshop anymore. Any time office365 is discussed, again people complain.
People seem to hate subscriptions.
What is true instead is that people are forced into subscriptions because one-time purchases are just not offered anymore.
I agree. For quite a few people, both Photoshop and Office is software that is "done". It already does a thousand things more than they use so users would be absolutely fine to pay a one-time fee for a particular version, and just stay there. This option has been taken away, which is consumer-hostile.
I consider a note-taking service to be a different situation, similar to a photo hosting service. Costs are ongoing (and typically growing) so it's not reasonable to expect a one time payment.
As for the first case, both Adobe and Microsoft are thriving for forcing subscriptions, so it makes a lot of business sense. From their perspective it makes sense to dismiss the outrage. People that need the software will ultimately give in and those that are complaining the most, weren't delivering revenue anyway.
The important thing to understand is that both examples are industry standard, irreplaceable software. There are little to no serious alternatives. A startup with some very optional software can't afford this arrogance.
As I mentioned on a thread, one-time purchases are a lie we tell ourselves anyway, and every version of Office or Photoshop (pre subscription). You still have to pay for the newest version with the support for new hardware/OS and features.
You do not have to pay for the newest version. I know plenty of people who are several versions behind on Adobe apps because they are enough for their needs and they cannot afford new ones. Those same people can’t afford the newest hardware and are fine with not upgrading their OS to be able to use their apps.
Right, it was a massive generalization. However, I highly doubt those people are using Windows 98 (insert other example), and they probably did at some point (depending on age, ecosystem etc).
They may well not be using the 'most current' version of the software, and I can think of a few pieces of software where that's been the case for me too. Either because I don't use it enough to justify the upgrade, or I actively object to being fleeced again for essentially the same product that's been "updated".
But eventually, if they want to continue doing the task they'll end up paying for a new version. Unless it's open source, it's always under the control of the product creator, and their incentives are always going to be on extracting money, and indeed they need to, to continue supporting the software.
In the Apple Ecosystem, the move to M1 Macs is an example that will force people to pay for upgrades.
Buying it once and riding it as long as possible is undoubtly cheaper than subscriptions, however it's still got a lifespan that eventually requires the next payment.
> But eventually, if they want to continue doing the task they'll end up paying for a new version.
Freehand[1] has been discontinued for almost two decades, and ten years ago I was still able to use it to great effect. Heck, if I wanted to use it today I probably could, thanks to Wine[2].
> however it's still got a lifespan that eventually requires the next payment.
Unless you wait so long that a competitor arises or you stop having the need. I never paid for Adobe Creative Cloud and Affinity[3] came along without subscriptions. One could also conceivably do without Microsoft Office updates so long that Open Office catches up to the needed features and surpasses it.
Note I do tend to pay for new versions of software I use. But I have no quarrel with stopping if they no longer provide adequate value, like 1Password moving to subscription pricing to collect rent on a done product yet somehow still managing to make it inferior (Electron).
I continue to disagree with the premise that “one-time purchases are a lie we tell ourselves”. If that were the case companies would have continued as they were. They move to subscriptions precisely because it removes the customer’s choice to upgrade—you either keep paying or can’t even access your past files. And they can jack up the price or remove features at any time (see LastPass).
Though I can get behind the hybrid model of Perpetual Fallback Licenses[4].
I almost mentioned competitors, I consider buying a competitors product to be an example in support of my argument, and open-source the exception. I too own a copy of Affinity, because I don't use those features enough to justify the rent-seeking that Adobe does.
I don't think we disagree as much as you think, I'm not arguing in favour of subscriptions. I'm simply pointing out that the majority of the companies that have avoided subscription models still have to make money and they do that by only releasing features in new versions of the software. Only supporting new platforms with new versions.
When it comes to technically competant users, there are usally alternatives that allow usage (as you suggest), but those aren't realistic for the majority of users.
Software creators must take in money to support themselves (or else work for free, as is the case with open-source). That can either be in the form of subscriptions, paid upgrades, or donations.
Given the constant onward march of technology and platforms, eventually they'll get you (or their competitor will get you), and you'll open your wallet again.
I wonder if this is actually true. Or maybe if it was, I wonder if the tide is changing. It seems there's more and more "subscription fatigue" these days (parent's reply is a good example).
I sell a one-time-purchase Mac app and I've had multiple customers tell me "I wouldn't have bought if it was a subscription" - and this is for an app that saves people hours a week on video editing, what would seem like the prototypical example of a "recurring need". I think people are just tired.
I think the way they do the model is the ideal. You want to use their servers? You pay your rent. You want to not use their servers? Then you just use the local app.
