Hacker News Reader

Comment by c-linkage | Hacker News Reader

You are correct, but I also hate that "recurring revenue" is the right answer.

Not only does a subscription fee act as a constant resource drain (as opposed to a one-time charge) but it further pushes society into the zone of "you won't own anything and like it".

Human life and the ability to interact with others and our environment should not be reserved to those that can sustain a high velocity of money.

Focusing on a consistent cash flow makes financial management easy but makes everything else suck. It optimizes for the wrong metric.

UPDATE: You can also look at subscription fees as a tax on productivity. If I pay once for Adobe software I can amortize that over the entire time I use it, and eventually the monthly cost will reach nearly zero. With a subscription fee I can never amortize the software, meaning the fee is effectively a tax. And if I stop paying the fee I completely lose my ability to use the product.

View on HN

On the other hand, you can regard one-time fees as subscriptions in disguise, because hardly any useful software can be used forever. File formats change, collaboration changes, operating systems change.

Yeah you could run your bought-once MS-DOS accounting software in a VM forever, but most useful software has a clear expiration date, especially if you try to collaborate on data.

Even knowing that, I much prefer software I buy and own forever. I have too many subscriptions already and I feel icky knowing there’s all these leeches draining money automatically from my bank account every month, with not enough visibility.

A few weeks ago I was looking at iPad apps to help me learn piano. They all want a $15/month subscription or something, and I hate it. I know what I’m like - I’ll subscribe then forget and end up spending $100 for an app I use twice. I ended up getting an in person music teacher instead. It’s more expensive, but it feels better spending the money like that.

Software I buy then own (or even, pay for once a year for updates like Jetbrains) feels better because each renewal feels like an active, conscious choice.

I have a file manager for my phone. (File commander) They have a pro version that I would gladly pay for but the only way to get it is as a monthly subscription. So I just don't buy it.

For apps like those, I just find cracks online and install those apps with all pro features included.

Why would a file manager that runs locally and doesn't require tons of flashy features have a monthly subscription?

It's so stupid. I prefer the Jetbrains model of pay subscription or license, but subscriptions become cheaper as you had more time subscribed (IIRC, 30% discount on 3rd year)

Consider subscribing, and then cancelling, if the monthly fee is worth a one-time use

I would guess that in many cases, you could use it longer than the SaaS would exist.

Subscriptions are almost definitely more profitable.

E.g. Photoshop is now $240/year. The last price I could find for a version you could actually buy was $500. Assuming someone uses it for 4 years (which might be short, the few people I know who use PS latch onto a version for forever), it would be ~$1,000 for a license.

A lot of stuff would be fine for about a decade. That would be ~$2,500 for comparable income.

Subscriptions tend to be dramatically more expensive than buying software was. $5/month over a decade is $600. A lot of stuff wants to charge $5/month for something I wouldn't pay $600 to own for a decade.

I understand this perspective and sometimes I want to agree with it, but it requires some kind of competition/innovation/refinement process to exist. One time purchases means the provider needs to entice you to upgrade one way or the other - compatibility with new formats and paradigms, better X, something. Subscriptions don't have that incentive once they're relatively entrenched as de facto standards. Granted, one time purchases also suffer from hubris at that stage (see unnecessary UX changes to Photoshop, Windows, etc.) but it's more obvious with SaaS due to the sunk cost fallacy.

Every business is moving to SaaS because they make more money off of the customers that way. So you can't really spin it as being better for the customer. It's better for the investors in those businesses, and worse for the customers.

I actually don't mind subscriptions if they are structured correctly. If I had the choice of buying a software package that I could expect to be useful for 5 years (even good software becomes out-of-date over time) for $100 or paying a $20 yearly subscription; I would rather have the subscription.

The problem is that most vendors want you to pay about half of what a package would normally cost for a perpetual license on a yearly basis. Anything over 2 years becomes more expensive.

Yeah this. I don't mind SaaS in theory. In practice it is just a more expensive and invasive way of a way to get your software.

Too many apps think 10$/mo is reasonable. Thats 120$ a year. Absurd.

I do not like the incentives it place on the supplier. With a software package, they are required to compete not only with other companies, but also themselves from years ago. If they do not make worthwhile improvements, users will not upgrade.

SAAS only has to compete with other companies.

It also puts the burden on the user to remember to cancel things. If I stop using my bike, it just sits in my garage. If I stop using the gym, I keep paying for it until I jump through their hoops and cancel my membership.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com