Hacker News Reader

Comment by Archit3ch | Hacker News Reader

Hot take: Subscription models actually reflect the costs of software development better than an one-off purchase. They link the value provided by updates/maintenance to a tangible cost. If we agree that software isn't ever finished, shouldn't the economics reflect that?

Adobe expects businessess to pay for the tools of their trade, not hobbyists. Consumers are better served by a front-loaded buy-once model that includes free updates, but Adobe doesn't want to be in the B2C space.

The author also describes Adobe's products as "basic tools". As someone who doesn't use them, they seem anything but.

View on HN

> Hot take: Subscription models actually reflect the costs of software development better than an one-off purchase. They link the value provided by updates/maintenance to a tangible cost.

I don’t agree with this at all. I believe subscription models encourage laziness and/or introduction of unnecessary or complex features (to show that busywork is being done).

Sell a license for applications with support included for a year or whatever, like developers used to and still do. If you continue providing more value to customers, and if you aren’t too greedy to introduce new versions and upgrades for trivial updates often, why would the majority of your customers not purchase a paid upgrade every couple of years or so?

I feel there are many areas that are saturated and that developers struggle to figure out how to add more value...or rather, extract more money from customers (1Password in recent years is an example of this, in my experience).

Your model creates a very clear incentive to put new features in your drawer just waiting for a new major version.

Note that for mobile apps, paid upgrades aren’t really an option for developers due to the way the app stores work. Also, developers constantly need to update apps to be compatible with new OS releases. Only the subscription model aligns with this.

developers constantly need to update apps to be compatible with new OS releases.

It could be sold as a paid upgrade. Customers will complain, but they complain more about subscriptions.

>Adobe expects businessess to pay for the tools of their trade, not hobbyists.

Untrue, otherwise they would make their apps free for non commercial use.

It would be smarter, because there are many hobbyists who don't even get started with Adobe these days because of the subscription.

They link the value provided by updates/maintenance to a tangible cost.

Unfortunately, they do not guarantee that the value added and the extra cost are proportionate, or even have the same sign.

So you can stop the subscription then and not worry about a couple of thousands you’d pay as a single purchase cost.

But if you stop a CC subscription, you lose access to the software you did like as well. In contrast, the entirely legal, bought-at-considerable-cost version of Creative Suite that remains installed on one of the PCs at work is still working just fine after all this time.

Also, the alternative we're increasingly using now (the Affinity suite) doesn't cost anything like thousands for a permanent licence, so this idea that it's somehow necessary to charge that kind of money to make software development viable in this market is demonstrably wrong.

I do not agree with the premise that software is never finished.

Is there a piece of software that doesn’t require even occasional bug fixes or updates in order for it to run reliably on even a single operating system/browser?

Service agreements exist for that reason. That’s not the same as a subscription model because I have the option of purchasing that.

But when all your apps stop working every time you install a major OS update, are you saying you would be happy to pay again? Because most people will whine like crazy.

That doesn’t happen with every platform. Windows is backwards compatible for forever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com