Subscription software - why the trend?

[arthurking83]

.....

However "open" does not always mean what we think. It often means "a free license to use", which is quite different and can be revoked later!

.....

I think I've mentioned more than once that while the gesture appears on the face of it to be noble .. the DNG file format may not be what THEY!! want you to think it is.


My take is that for the next 10 or so years a lot of people will be suckered into this market movement.
At some point they will notice the lack of any real improvement of the software over the preceding 10 years that they have paid for it.
Only then will they consciously consider that while a once off up front cost of ... say $700, or $1000 may have appeared to be quite a large hit at the time, it's still probably less then the $200 or $300 a year that they have paid for the preceding 5 years up to this point of revelation.

When my copy of Office 2010 ceases to have any relevance, I will completely move over to Open Office for good.

For perfect software, I'd gladly pay $1000 or even $2000 up front, and be done with it.
Apart from one or two obscure programs I have ever used .. not one fits the bill as 'perfect' software, and FWIW, in general they usually end up being at the extreme end of perfect.
If not in usability, then in stability or performance.
But I have no issue paying $200 for software that may not be perfect, but one that has not required any more financial input from me for about 8 years!

$200 over 8 years .. well it's easy math to do. And that's what good software should cost on an annual basis.

Strangely tho, the two programs I classify as 'perfect' have cost me either next to nothing($25, about 10 years ago) or nothing(about 6 years ago).

Actually thinking it about it more, that $100/yr for Office doesn't sound too bad to be honest.
If it weren't for the fact that the kids get tablet/laptops at school and they come with whatever Office version they need for school, I'd have been tempted at that price.

[Warb]

My take is that for the next 10 or so years a lot of people will be suckered into this market movement.
At some point they will notice the lack of any real improvement of the software over the preceding 10 years that they have paid for it.
Only then will they consciously consider that while a once off up front cost of ... say $700, or $1000 may have appeared to be quite a large hit at the time, it's still probably less then the $200 or $300 a year that they have paid for the preceding 5 years up to this point of revelation.

My first PC (meaning IBM/DOS style rather than any other computer) was an IBM PC XT, with DOS and a 10Mb hard drive (not a typo!). I used Wordperfect and Lotus 1-2-3. From the viewpoint of actually doing stuff, there is nothing that I can do now that I couldn't do on that system! Lotus required slightly more typing than the latest version of Excel, as there was no mouse to select multiple columns etc. The same applies to Wordperfect, no mouse meant navigation was slightly slower. Apart from that, the 1985 software did everything that my current word processor and spreadsheet do.

In the early 1990's I was at a presentation by Microsoft, where they stated that they could not make software do anything more than it already did, so they were concentrating ONLY on making it easier to use.

In the last 20 years, software has changed appearance but does no more than it used to. The only reasons to upgrade have been to cater for changing file formats, internet connectivity and the associated security issues.

Each round of software updates has also resulted in the software requiring more horsepower to run, and therefore also entails new hardware with higher performance. My old IBM with a 10Mb hard drive, which stored all my documents, software and operating system would not store a single photo from my 7D!

The upward spiral of hardware performance has removed any attempt at efficiency by the software companies, so software has become exponentially bigger, bandwidth requirements grow constantly.

So whilst I agree, and indeed have often said myself, that in perfect isolation a computer that did a job 10 years ago can still do it today, the reality is that without that isolation, when connected to the internet and dealing with new file formats, new security threats etc., most people find it hard to avoid upgrading!

As an example, whilst I am supposedly retired I still work (for free) for a few local businesses and friends. Several of them have avoided upgrading (to save money), and are now faced with big issues. In some cases the cost of parts for a small hardware repair can be almost as much as an entire new computer because the older parts can be far more expensive. New operating systems don't always play well with older ones, or older servers. Old peripherals don't always work with new machines, and vice versa.

IT is a money making exercise, so the industry has a carrot and stick approach to making us constantly spend money. We gain very little from the expense, however it almost always boils down to either a constant string of small outlays, or one huge one every few years! In business I advised budgeting at minimum to replace 20% of IT every year, preferably more. The subscription model is one way to deal with the replacement/upgrade/maintenance cost for software.

The MS Office subscription system is one of the better ones. Adobe products can be purchased outright at very reasonable prices, but often only older versions. However because so little changes with each new version, that's probably not an issue!

When the subscription model was first introduced I hated it. But after some analysis, and getting over the "they're gouging us" gut reaction, it can make sense if the particular example is "fair".