Hacker News Reader

Comment by rpgmaker | Hacker News Reader

> More importantly, subscriptions are immoral because the end result is robbing users of any sense of ownership.

I don't know why people allowed this transition from software ownership to subscription to happen (although they really weren't given the choice). It's ridiculous that the customer is giving away his MS Office ownership in exchange for the marginal improvements that MS has been doing in the last couple of releases.

Most people here on HN (me included) would benefit from this development but I agree with you: subscriptions are immoral.

PS: IntelliJ IDEA it's great but it is ridiculously expensive imho.

View on HN

IntelliJ IDEA is crazy cheap if you're being paid as a software developer or have developers on your payroll.

I wish there was more software like it that can just instantly make all my developers more effective. The cost is so minuscule compared to what it actually costs to keep a developer's butt in the chair, I'd be a complete idiot to try to save a few bucks on the tools they use.

I can make anything look cheap if I compare it with something substantially more expensive but that isn't the point. I think it is expensive because after shelling that amount I end up without a copy of the software that I can call my own.

It started with corporations. It's far "cheaper"—in how things appear on a balance-sheet—for corporations to subscribe to services, than it is for them to buy software at retail. "Convert CapEx to OpEx" is the keyword-phrase to chase for this. It's the same reason hardware sellers like Apple have leasing programs: they're mainly for corporations, and just coincidentally there for individuals.

Do note that the big conversions to SaaS models in recent years—Adobe Creative Cloud, Microsoft Office 365, etc.—are of products where 90+% of the revenue already came from corporate buyers rather than from individual consumer licenses. That the SaaS model also does something-or-other to drive consumer income is cute, but kind of irrelevant to the product managers who are making these business-model decisions.

> I don't know why people allowed this transition from software ownership to subscription to happen

I don't know why developers allowed to happen the transition of reasonably priced software to ridiculously underpriced almost-free apps.

Developers were free to set whatever price they chose and free seemed to be the price settled.

A bed was made. This bed worked worked out well for IAP driven consumer apps but not so great for less disposable software.

You think $150 is too expensive for a piece of software you use ~8 hours a day to do a $100k+ salary job?

Go ask a mechanic or carpenter how much money they spend on their tools for a job that pays significantly less.

> Go ask a mechanic or carpenter how much money they spend on their tools for a job that pays significantly less.

That's a hilarious example, because they don't rent and pay subscription for those tools, they buy them.

You'd be surprised to learn how many CATs and so on are rented not owned. United Rentals seems to do well renting equipment out.

It's expensive if after shelling out that amount I still don't own the software. I wouldn't complain if I could pay a onetime $500-$600 if in the end I at least owned a copy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com